Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 11 12
Joined: Mar 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Look, you like BG3 as is. That's cool. But please understand that the players that have complaints about this game aren't doing it because they are bored or think the homebrews are minor. We all legitimately would like BG3 to be better and we are arguing that currently with all the Larian homebrew, the game is not as good as it can be.

I respect that. Giving feedback to improve that game is what EA is for. I do hope they add a classic 5e mode for those that want it. Hell, I want it. I've played through the game a few times and Im in the middle of a few runs with other characters. I've gotten good at the game and would like anything to make the combat more difficult. I also want people to be able to play how they want to play. If people want 5e, then I'm all for adding the option to do so.

All I'm saying is that the game doesn't suffer for having all of the Homebrew in it. I know some people don't feel that way, and sure the Homebrew does allow for cheese, but I'm okay with cheese. The only issue I really hate is the long rest. Unlimited long rests sucks a lot of the difficulty out of encounters. It's not so much a problem for me, because I can self enforce these limitations and stretch my spell slots between three or four encounters. But not everyone plays that way, and self imposing restrictions might ruin some of the fun for them. I really hope they do something about it.

Joined: Feb 2021
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Feb 2021
Im not trying to be technical or legal here. Im just saying it was totally presented that way. It was not represented as a hack/slash adventure but a turn based RNG authentic D&D game.

There are D&D hack/slashers and people expect them to be just that. They don't complain when they are not. This game was expected to be a D&D 5e game. That is way so many are upset that it is not. Its the bottom line. I don't care what word lawyers say, if you purposely make people think you are producing a certain kind of game, don't then make it something else.

One of the main reasons I bought this game was for an authentic 5e experience. Now, I enjoy this game. I love it a lot. But the point is that they shouldnt have said it would be 5e and then make it something else.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Savage North
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Savage North
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by GM4Him
It was marketed as a Turn Based Close to Tabletop D&D Experience. We are not getting that. End of story.

Is there a source that says Larian wanted to create an authentic TT RPG? [...] I don't remember Larian guaranteeing or even promising such a thing.

I tried to answer that question in that post, a little while ago (motivated by a similar question from someone else). My understanding of Larian's vision has probably improved since then, but the core of my post was looking at 4 interviews Larian gave, where they talked about the rules and the DnD/tabletop feel, and what they said won't change.

I wasn't able to provide a definite, clear-cut, yes/no answer to the question. But I found their communication to send mixed signals, saying both "it will be quite close/just some tweaks" and "oh we only focus on a game we'll enjoy playing, not so much on the RAW". And I think that it is very understandable that, as a result from Larian's communications, some players were expecting more faithfulness to the rules.


Hoping we'll be able to create great assumptions-free Custom Characters and be given great roleplay options.
Joined: Feb 2021
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Feb 2021
For so many of us to have expected 5e, that says it all. They marketed so that it would appeal to 5e players who have been wanting an authentic D&D experience on PC. They certainly were not marketing it as a game similar to DOS or Xcom or Baldurs Dark Alliance or even Neverwinter or whatever. I remember specifically it was supposed to be as close to 5e as possible because that was one of the things that drew me in. I like BG1 and 2. I liked Dark Alliance. I had no problem with them because I knew what I was getting.

Again, love BG3. But I will probably gripe until they give me a 5e option for rules because that is what they communicated to me.

No. I take that back. I will gripe until they make a decision and tell me what direction they are going. If you aren't gonna have authentic 5e, then just tell me so. I'll be happy and shut up and enjoy the game for what it is. If you decide to give us 5e through a difficulty setting or something, great. Tell me and I'll accept it and shut up. But until you tell me what way you're going, I'm gonna keep voicing my desire for a true, genuine 5e experience.

Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
Originally Posted by footface
It's not so much a problem for me, because I can self enforce these limitations and stretch my spell slots between three or four encounters. But not everyone plays that way, and self imposing restrictions might ruin some of the fun for them. I really hope they do something about it.

I hope you know, as it currently stands, you are penalized on your relationships with companions by waiting to take long rests. Yup. Long rests advance certain companion story lines so if you wait, you miss out.

Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
Originally Posted by Drath Malorn
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by GM4Him
It was marketed as a Turn Based Close to Tabletop D&D Experience. We are not getting that. End of story.

Is there a source that says Larian wanted to create an authentic TT RPG? [...] I don't remember Larian guaranteeing or even promising such a thing.

I tried to answer that question in that post, a little while ago (motivated by a similar question from someone else). My understanding of Larian's vision has probably improved since then, but the core of my post was looking at 4 interviews Larian gave, where they talked about the rules and the DnD/tabletop feel, and what they said won't change.

I wasn't able to provide a definite, clear-cut, yes/no answer to the question. But I found their communication to send mixed signals, saying both "it will be quite close/just some tweaks" and "oh we only focus on a game we'll enjoy playing, not so much on the RAW". And I think that it is very understandable that, as a result from Larian's communications, some players were expecting more faithfulness to the rules.

Right. Again, my expectations were the same as both of you. I'm just saying Larian had very slick attorneys that made sure whatever they said or promised never mentions an authentic 5e experience. And probably will never say one way or another. And why would they? They would end up alienating a whole portion of their audience or worse, promise something that may not or cannot happen.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by GM4Him
For so many of us to have expected 5e, that says it all. They marketed so that it would appeal to 5e players who have been wanting an authentic D&D experience on PC. They certainly were not marketing it as a game similar to DOS or Xcom or Baldurs Dark Alliance or even Neverwinter or whatever. I remember specifically it was supposed to be as close to 5e as possible because that was one of the things that drew me in. I like BG1 and 2. I liked Dark Alliance. I had no problem with them because I knew what I was getting.
Do you have any links to where they said that? No one yet has been able to provide one.

Below is what is said on the BG3 steam page. They specifically mention dipping, shoving, and expanded environmental interactions. Some might not want those in, but it shouldn't have come as a surprise that they were.

"The Forgotten Realms are a vast, detailed and diverse world, and there are secrets to be discovered all around you -- verticality is a vital part of exploration. Sneak, dip, shove, climb, and jump as you journey from the depths of the Underdark to the glittering rooftops of the Upper City. How you survive, and the mark you leave on the world, is up to you." ...

"Evolved turn-based combat based on the D&D 5e ruleset. Team-based initiative, advantage & disadvantage, and roll modifiers join combat cameras, expanded environmental interactions, and a new fluidity in combat that rewards strategy and foresight."

Last edited by Icelyn; 18/04/21 12:31 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
addict
Online Content
addict
Joined: Jun 2020
The interviews and advertisements where they openly said that this would be a D&D game using the 5e rule set - and they did say that in the early days of promotion - now *Cannot Be Found* Those particular interviews have disappeared or been replaced with 'newer' ones that edge ever further away from really associating with 5e at all.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
I am hoping they mean this:

“Since day one of Baldur's Gate 3’s announcement, community discussion, feedback, and organization (thank you) has shaped what we’ve said and done. Though we have a strong vision for the game throughout our team of over 300 people, our goal is to create a game that gets our audience excited, and to maintain a healthy relationship with those who take the time to provide feedback and help us create a better game. We use automatic data collection tools to help us better balance the game but we also listen to forum feedback and use that to drive internal debate. We create massive, sprawling games, and we couldn’t possibly explore every single permutation and combination of skills, choices, reactions and conclusions without our community. Working with your thoughts, feedback, and behaviour helps us to better understand how our ideas are toyed with, and how we can improve things.”

Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
Originally Posted by Niara
The interviews and advertisements where they openly said that this would be a D&D game using the 5e rule set - and they did say that in the early days of promotion - now *Cannot Be Found* Those particular interviews have disappeared or been replaced with 'newer' ones that edge ever further away from really associating with 5e at all.

Well, people were wondering if these forums do make a difference and Larian uses them to make changes. It seems it does but not the way some of us had hoped.

Joined: Feb 2021
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Feb 2021
The point is, Im not going to sue Larian about 5e. I don't care what their lawyers say. They said 5e, and people expect 5e. To not give 5e is to completely piss off a HUGE part of the WotC fan base. So if they don't want a bunch of D&D fanatics pissed off, they need to give us 5e as indicated if not promised.

Or at least tell us straight. Dont leave us out here wondering if its ever going to happen.

Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
Originally Posted by GM4Him
The point is, Im not going to sue Larian about 5e. I don't care what their lawyers say. They said 5e, and people expect 5e. To not give 5e is to completely piss off a HUGE part of the WotC fan base. So if they don't want a bunch of D&D fanatics pissed off, they need to give us 5e as indicated if not promised.

Or at least tell us straight. Dont leave us out here wondering if its ever going to happen.

Then you better get mad at WotC also because Jeremy Crawford was on the last panel and he didn't seem like he was complaining on the development of BG3. In fact, the implication was, he agreed with the current direction of BG3.

Joined: Feb 2021
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Feb 2021
You guys are all missing the point. I don't care who is responsible, what the lawyers say, what Larian says, the expectation was created. This game was supposed to be 5e. That was what they caused players to expect.

That said, I love BG3. I'm going to still play it. I just think they're going to piss off a huge part of their fan base if they don't do some sort of authentic 5e rules difficulty setting like Solasta did.

Joined: Jun 2020
addict
Online Content
addict
Joined: Jun 2020
To say Crawford agreed with the current direction is a big stretch, Spectral.

I put up a synopsis of the panel itself (Here), but for Jeremy's bit, it was very disrespectful to him and he spent the entire time wearing his PR-plaster smiling face, and only actually looked like he was engaging or growing animated as a person when he was talking about background druid lore. He gave "safe" answers, when offered incredibly loaded, back-handed questions, especially given that he was on a publicity panel for the game that Wizards has already endorsed, and wasn't actually given any real opportunity to speak about his actual forte (being that he is lead for rules design, his entire segment had one single, largely rhetorical question about rules that was worded and loaded in a such a way that he didn't really have much room to answer it, and nothing else).

Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Location: CA
Originally Posted by Niara
To say Crawford agreed with the current direction is a big stretch, Spectral.

I put up a synopsis of the panel itself (Here), but for Jeremy's bit, it was very disrespectful to him and he spent the entire time wearing his PR-plaster smiling face, and only actually looked like he was engaging or growing animated as a person when he was talking about background druid lore. He gave "safe" answers, when offered incredibly loaded, back-handed questions, especially given that he was on a publicity panel for the game that Wizards has already endorsed, and wasn't actually given any real opportunity to speak about his actual forte (being that he is lead for rules design, his entire segment had one single, largely rhetorical question about rules that was worded and loaded in a such a way that he didn't really have much room to answer it, and nothing else).

Sometimes what was not said tells the story more than what was said. Crawford never argued against any of the changes. Yes, they were safe answers. Why was he even there if he wasn't going to answer any meaningful questions? My guess? To put credence and confidence to Swen and company; a sign of official support. Surely if WotC and Crawford aren't against what Larian is implementing, then they are okay with it. That's what I perceived. If that's not what they were hoping for, well, that's not what I got from the panel.

Perhaps personally Crawford may not like it but his personal preferences don't matter if corporate is good with what Larian is doing with the game.

Joined: Sep 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
To say Crawford agreed with the current direction is a big stretch, Spectral.

I put up a synopsis of the panel itself (Here), but for Jeremy's bit, it was very disrespectful to him and he spent the entire time wearing his PR-plaster smiling face, and only actually looked like he was engaging or growing animated as a person when he was talking about background druid lore. He gave "safe" answers, when offered incredibly loaded, back-handed questions, especially given that he was on a publicity panel for the game that Wizards has already endorsed, and wasn't actually given any real opportunity to speak about his actual forte (being that he is lead for rules design, his entire segment had one single, largely rhetorical question about rules that was worded and loaded in a such a way that he didn't really have much room to answer it, and nothing else).
I never actually read through your synopsis because I was so disappointed after watching the (first ~2/3 of the) panel and didn't want to experience it again so soon after. So I read your synopsis just now and...I'm sad. It's just sad. (Not about your summary. Your summary and comments were accurate and great)

Poor Jeremy.

Joined: Jan 2021
L
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
L
Joined: Jan 2021
I have no problem whatsoever with stuff like the dipping and environmental actions. It might not be in the core rules, but from what I have read 5e is more rules light. Having an interaction for lighting flammable materials on fire is a good thing to put in a game like this and IMO a sensible building upon of the rules. Stuff like that has happened more than once in games I have DM'd and games I have played in-I feel it would be pretty ruleslawyer-y thing for a DM to stamp their foot down and say 'no you can't light the pool of lantern oil on fire' for example. I just don't want more Blackpits fights down the road.

It *could* use some tweaking- I think the food healing is a bit much and makes the expensive healing potions redundant. They'd be neat to have as sort of a resource for traveling if Larian was going for a more BG I exploration style, or as a requisite for rest healing to reign in the long-rest spam. Acid giving -2 ac feels really unintuitive, and dare I say it, unimerssive. Also really easy to mix up with poison, which is the surface you really need to watch out for, not acid.

Joined: Dec 2020
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Dec 2020
Originally Posted by gaymer
Yep, they want mass appeal. So that is leading towards jack of all trades and master of none.

Have you not noticed a pattern in what they are trying to do? People did not like the dice rolls and hate the RNG. Oh, we will give you loaded dice so you pass the checks way more often despite your characters having poor modifiers or stats.

Oh, we want everyone to hit all the time even at low-level DnD play. We will give everyone ez-pz advantage for both spells (high ground) and melee (backstab) and lower AC across the board so everyone can hit way more often for morale.

Oh, you are not used to resource management and spell slots? No problem. We will make resting unlimited and without restriction so you can have all your spells up all the time and not worry about needing to save them for big battles.



At this point, I am convinced they will introduce a game mode with no dice at all for those that hate any RNG element. And maybe the image and illusion of dice will still be there, but you will pass 100% of non-combat checks.

They are scared to alienate anyone because that is less revenue. It is a lot of people who are interested in this game that only have DOS1 and DOS2 background with no knowledge of 5e mechanics and the training wheels (homebrew and Larian-friendly building) have to be put on so they are more likely to buy and play the game.

I generally don't mind the existence of loaded dice at all. It is an optional thing, and I would rather we spend our effort hammering down the fundamental flaws with the combat system itself than something on the side that manipulates the RNG. The only issue I take with it is that they spent dev resources and time creating and promoting it, rather than addressing the fundamental flaws.

As you've basically said, I don't think the RNG itself is really the issue, it's how the homebrew rules really emphasize the absolute extremes of the RNG. It skews everyone's perception to the point where any attack without advantage is seen as a bad probability. Hence my constant arguing on Reddit last week where I mention that the combat system of BG3 at its very core is deliberately designed around using DOS-style homebrew mechanics to completely circumvent DnD RNG, and failing to take advantage of said mechanics means you immediately get slapped with penalties that mess with your RNG to a level far worse than you'd ever see from literally any other turn-based game. People need to realize that someone responsible for the combat design in this game really put actual thought into things like shoving from stealth having a 100% success rate, along with damaging field effects and exploding barrels not allowing any kind of saving throw to mitigate their effects.

It's kind of like video game reviews. 'Journalists' hand out 8-10 scores so often now, that anything lower than that is seen as a terrible game by all metrics. Even now, an AAA game scoring less than a 9 is seen as a complete failure.

Last edited by Saito Hikari; 18/04/21 04:27 AM.
Joined: Feb 2021
G
addict
Offline
addict
G
Joined: Feb 2021
Seriously. Bottom line. Larian created expectation. Larian has yet to deliver on the expectation. Larian has not told us whether they are actually going to deliver on the expectation.

So, the bottom line is: Let Down Expectation + No Word About Whether They Will Deliver On Expectation = Lots of Angry D&D Fans = A Huge Chunk Of The BG Fan Base Not Happy = Many Complaints In Forums = Many Potential Players Not Buying The Game Because They Think It Sucks = Less Money For Larian = No Future BG Titles Created = 1 Very Sad Gm4Him

Joined: Mar 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Niara
To say Crawford agreed with the current direction is a big stretch, Spectral.

I put up a synopsis of the panel itself (Here), but for Jeremy's bit, it was very disrespectful to him and he spent the entire time wearing his PR-plaster smiling face, and only actually looked like he was engaging or growing animated as a person when he was talking about background druid lore. He gave "safe" answers, when offered incredibly loaded, back-handed questions, especially given that he was on a publicity panel for the game that Wizards has already endorsed, and wasn't actually given any real opportunity to speak about his actual forte (being that he is lead for rules design, his entire segment had one single, largely rhetorical question about rules that was worded and loaded in a such a way that he didn't really have much room to answer it, and nothing else).
I never actually read through your synopsis because I was so disappointed after watching the (first ~2/3 of the) panel and didn't want to experience it again so soon after. So I read your synopsis just now and...I'm sad. It's just sad. (Not about your summary. Your summary and comments were accurate and great)

Poor Jeremy.

It is sad.

Page 3 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 11 12

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