Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Misconception Destroyed - Map is abstract distance

It has been said on a number of threads that the distance between the grove and temple are not literal. Just because it takes you, at most, maybe 20 minutes to get to the goblin camp from the grove (really less than that) doesn't mean that it is literally that close in the game world.

I want to point out my problem with this:

Halsin and Aradin left on Marpenoth 2. The toll house fell on Uktar 16. That's like a month and a half that it took them to go to the temple and return. People argue, "it's because the map is not literal. It is abstract distance.". This implies that it actually takes 2 weeks to get from the grove to the temple, bare minimum.

But Baldur's Gate is 10 days from the grove, at least. So, it doesn't make sense that everything is much further away than it appears, no matter what way you spin it. If Baldur's is 10 days away, that means that "the map's distance is much greater than you think it is" does not work. Even if everything in EA is supposed to be within a day's journey of the grove, which nothing indicates this as being true, that still does not work with everything we are told in the story.

So, I am writing this post to put down the somewhat popular belief that everything on the EA world is supposed to be actually much farther apart. It clearly is not. It is all like 1 big dungeon, and that makes no sense at all from various story elements.

Not sure other arguments are needed to point at the inconsistency of the map design.

The gameplay at the expense of the coherence of the world and the story is something that is present almost everywhere in the game.

Our characters are walking/running in real time and "abstract distance" does not exist in open world games (or half open, call this how it pleases you).

You know, I don't think it's so much that the map doesn't work with the story. I think this map could work with the story if they explain certain things like why haven't the goblins been able to find a Grove that is so close to their camp and really doesn't seem that hard to find.

For example, I added a small paragraph that described how the Grove was protected by a magical illusion barrier which was created by the idol and the sanctuary itself, blessed by Silvanus, or something like that. So, goblins might wander near it and never see it because of the illusion. Now I'm not saying that it has to be that. I'm just saying they could find a magical way to explain why goblins are so close but can't find it.

The point is that they could still make this map work as is and just add a few little things so that it makes sense from a story perspective. With Halsin, all they have to do is have us be able to find something or talk to someone who explains how he and the adventurers actually made it down into the underdark and that's when the goblins actually first showed up in the area about a month ago. Then they spent the month wandering about trying to survive and avoid the drow and goblins. Then when the nautiloid landed, that was when the goblins found them. Again something like this would explain what took them so long. You don't have to change the entire map so that it makes sense from that perspective.

I mean, I really like the map. I like that I feel like I'm exploring every inch of the world as I'm traveling through it. Just don't tell me it takes two weeks or something to get to the temple when it would take less than that to get to Baldur's.

You know what else has been bothering me, what's up with "Hitpoints" I mean is it like blood? Why do you gain them, I don't have more hitpoints now than I did when I was 18...or do I?

Ha! Less hip-points for sure.

(And def more ache-joints)

I thought they got rid of ability damage in 5e!

The one that bugs me is that the goblins are roasting dwarf and going through his stuff at the camp - which means that when you GET there, at that time frame, they captured that dwarf (who was part of Aradin's crew) THAT DAY, or at most, Yesterday.... but also, you only arrive there after Aradin and co have made the return journey, and you've made the journey out.

And then, at the same time, They are also celebrating and trading loot from the raid on Waukeen's Rest - this is happening simultaneously as it was their major raid... And Waukeen's rest is still burning, actively, with people inside that you can rescue and others trying to save them still... this fire was only just set, this raid only just happened - we missed the goblins by minutes AT MOST... but they're back at camp celebrating already.

All of this makes it really clear that this map and these locations are actual distance, at least for THIS reckoning: the Rest is minutes from the goblins and the goblins are a two minute jog from the grove... They CANNOT be even a half-day away form each other, cannot be even an HOUR away, for any of this to make tractable sense.

This couples up with the fact that, through all of this our party will take their rest breaks, and only comment after the third or fourth long rest that you voluntarily take, about how no symptoms are showing - there is no "assumed" travel time here at all. All of these locations are necessarily within spitting distance of one another, for any of these interactions to make sense.

And as other discussions have explored deeply, that can't make any sense alongside anything else, and defies any kind of believability on its own as well.

==

To GM4Him, if you've done the hard yards for tracking down time references and tracing this all out, then I'd strongly recommend that you take the time, if you can, to submit all of this through to Larian directly, as well as just here on the forums; giving them direct feedback about how damaging this is for the feel of the game and one's ability to immerse in it, is something that they need to hear from every source willing to bring it up. It's probably best for their feedback from, but you could try submitting it through their official bug form as well if you're feeling cheeky; it sort of does count.

==

I view hit points as a character's ability to cope with damage and pain - the goblin's club does the same amount of physical damage to you at level 1 as at level 20, but your own resilience, and your own ability to handle pain has increased that while it may have been 50% of your threshold for holding onto consciousness before, now it's barely 5% of what you can push through. In human terms, you do have more hit points now than you did when you were little - something that would have made you cry and give up, when you were five will not have the power to do so to you now... it'll just sting a bit and maybe frustrate you ^.^

NIARA! Thank you. That is exactly what I'm trying to tell people. None of this makes any sense.

200% agree with all you said.

As for HP, it is, like in most real RPGs, a measure of stamina. It represents how you get hit, and maybe your armor took the brunt of the blow, so you only got a bruise. It is a measure of cuts and scrapes on the arms and legs, etc.

The last hit that reduces you to 0 HP is the only major wound during combat. Critical Hits, even, are really only glancing blows but to places like the head or groin or stomach, this weakening you faster.

It's not a measure of stamina, it's an abstraction for fighting ability.

I don't actually know what ludo-narrative dissonance is but I'm pretty sure this all qualifies. I was just bringing up another oft criticized aspect of RPGs that is such an abstraction.

So, just to be clear, are you agreeing or disagreeing with the post?

I like the map, personally. Then again I tend to prefer theme park designs in most games. All art is constructed after all. The way Larian design maps seems better suited for cities than for the wilderness, however.


This is where I find myself stumbling as well. Time in the game exists, but the game seems to go out of its way to keep said existence hidden. As far as I can tell, time passing has nothing to do with the amount of rests taken or distance traveled, but instead the number of npcs you talk to (?). It’s possible to arrive at Waukeen’s Rest with the fires out and everyone gone, but you have to take a circuitous route to make that happen.

My best guess is they did it this way because they didn’t want players to feel like they had to rush to complete quests or explore talking to companions at camp, but like… most of the quests imply a sense of urgency, so players end up rushing and missing content regardless. It’s the one area where the ludonarrative dissonance is too strong even for one like myself—who tends to just roll with whatever the game gives me—to ignore. I hope this is mostly to let players experience content in EA, and once the rest of the act/game is completed this will be tightened up. But until then it’s definitely the biggest flaw so far, at least for me.

“Distances on the map are meant in abstraction “ was NEVER a legitimate talking point.
And as far as I can tell, not something Larian explicitly stated at any point.
Just a bizarre excuse some people on this forum tried to use in the past.

Agree!
Most games I play let you do quests when you want with no time limits, and that is how I like it. No timed quests, please!

The game already HAS "timed quests", and in one of the most insidious forms as well: you just trigger timers by proximity without even noticing them or being told about them.
Once the trigger is activated just doing a rest or changing zone translates in automatically failing a chance to get/complete a sidequest.

Which hilariously enough is potentially far more punishing than just being told upfront that you have a (usually generous) limited amount of time to achieve something.

But no, let's freak out about "limited time" instead.

I think generally speaking Larian is fairly good at designing diorama-like, miniature maps with super-compressed layouts.

The issue is: I just don't like these in principle. Not in an adventurous, massive RPG allegedly spawning across an entire province or region.

I wouldn’t mind if they changed the format of those. I am not sure how many world events there are, but so far I either haven’t failed any or failed some without ever knowing they existed.
Always!!!

I really like the map. Actually, it's not the problem I have. The problem I have is that they don't even try to make it work from a cohesive story perspective.

And you just can't do that in an RPG. A roleplaying game (RPG), is story first, then mechanics. The mechanics are only supposed to help guide the story, but if the mechanics get in the way of the story, you fudge the mechanics so the story remains solid and cohesive and so forth.

I'm not seeing that here. I'm seeing mechanics first, story second, and that is what drives me crazy. If you want a game like that, you don't create an RPG. You create some sort of hack/slash game or whatever where people are able to just go around enjoying the moments and who cares about the story?

They have built a really fun map, but the reason people think it's very gamey and like a theme park is because they aren't keeping things cohesive from a story perspective. Yes, it's fun to roam about and explore and meet all the characters, but the cost of this is that nothing is cohesive. When you are creating a sequel to an incredibly awesome RPG series like Baldur's Gate, you just can't do this. Baldur's Gate has always been about cohesive story first and mechanics second; as any good RPG should be.

So, an implementation of time doesn't mean that you can't complete quests if you don't do them in some sort of timely fashion, unless you can't find a way around it. So, with Waukeen's Rest, for example, the only reason why that would maybe have a specific timeline is if you went to the goblin camp first and discovered that they just raided the place. Until you either get to Waukeen's Rest or the goblin camp, there wouldn't be a time limit on the quest at all. If you go to the goblin's camp and learn the place was just raided, THEN it wouldn't make sense to allow players to long rest and still have the building burning. If you don't go directly to Waukeen's Rest at that time, then you'd miss the quest.

But it's a side quest. It shouldn't be that big of a deal if you don't actually trigger it. And again, the only way you'd lock yourself out of it is if it made sense to lock you out because you learned from someone that the inn was just attacked. If you go to the inn first, it doesn't lock you out.

Ethel meeting the two guys on the road is another example of how time could work to give flavor to the story. If you go straight from the grove to Ethel on the road, you witness the dialogue between the two guys and Ethel. If you don't go straight there, and you long rest, you find bodies instead. An Investigation roll is then made. If you fail, you have no idea what happened. If you succeed, you get a basic idea of what happened. Thus, it adds flavor to the game. Maybe one playthrough you witness the dialogue. Maybe another you get there and only find bodies. Maybe you succeed in the Investigation roll and your character figures out what happened. Maybe you fail and are clueless.

Arrive after two long rests from the time you leave the grove, and you find half-eaten bodies. Now the Investigation roll is higher to succeed in knowing what happened. Arrive three long rests after leaving the grove and you find no bodies, just bloody smears on the ground indicating the bodies were dragged off.

Things like this would provide the game with some movement of time and would make the game so much more replayable. Did it lock you out of the Hag's quest? Nope. It just added some different events in the game based on how many long rests you used.

I see some of this as an issue between open world vs hub based.

Open world requires a sense of scale that makes sense (and usually a mount of some sort to keep it from being tedious), and some mechanic of time passing (via day and night cycles). Like TW3.

Hub styles require time to pass as you move between hubs with potential for random encounters on your “travel” between those hubs. Like DAO, BG, etc.

Trying to do both in the same game = confusing. It destroys the illusion.

Trying to do everything instead of focusing on doing fewer things but doing them well is a common flaw of this game in its current state imho. Is it open world or hub-based? Is it multiplayer or single player? Is it 5e or DOS2?

Put too many toppings on a sundae, and you end up with wet candy instead of ice cream.

I really hate this hand-holding checklist approach to roleplaying you seem to crave. It incentivises a mechanical, completionist and perfectionist outlook that leads to compulsive and unimmersive meta-gaming (checking internet "how to" guides) and save-scumming.

I hope Larian sticks to their guns when it comes to this aspect of their design philosophy; facilitating creative interaction opportunities in a way that is not immediately obvious, that do not penalize the player (beyond the perfectionist mindset), and that are able to surprise even on a second playthrough - increasing replay value.

Yeah, that's fair. I'm not sure if it's because I mostly play Nintendo games these days or because I'm suffering from open world fatigue, but if asked to choose between a more compressed map and a large map with a lot of empty space, I'm usually going to favor the more compressed map. I'm not even sure the compression here is that bad, honestly. It wasn't something I actively noticed until I saw it brought up on the forums, and even after that there were only a couple times where I went 'Hmm, I dunno' such as with the tunnel to the grove being like a foot off the beaten path.


I've noticed this too. Like talking to Nettie is a trigger that can completely screw over Gale's Weave-related scenes because Raphael shows up shortly thereafter.

I've rarely encountered a timed quest that wasn't more than generous enough to let players finish it. Even Fallout 1 never felt all that bad to me. And if people truly feel anxiety over time-based quests, a simple solution would be to give them an option to turn it off.


That's true. Right now BG3 seems to want to draw a lot of inspiration from Origins as well as recent open world trends (in addition to their own general design philosophy), with mixed results. I don't know if it's necessarily that bad, however. Not like, say, Inquisition, which really suffered from trying to be both hub and open world and just came across as painfully bland.

We also only have access to one hub in the game so far. Two, maybe, if you consider the Underdark a secondary "hub". Right now we know for sure there are two paths--the Githyanki creche and the overhead pass--haven't been included in EA. Their inclusion would help the first act feel less cramped.


Hmmm, I dunno. I get replay value is a big talking point in games, especially rpgs, but hinging so much on multiple playthroughs doesn't respect the players' time. The vast majority of people are only going to play through BG3 once, maybe twice. Doubly so if they're older and busy with things like work and other media (like me, I still need to finish the book I'm currently reading and BG3 keep distracting me... oops lol).