Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 16 of 23 1 2 14 15 16 17 18 22 23
Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
Originally Posted by Sozz
I think the truth of the matter is , the DM considers this issue to be resolved so early on that it isn't a big issue for them.

Larian writing style 101. Shar is no biggy, tadpoles threatening to turn you any moment are whatever, cambions appearing out of the blue are monday, vampires trying to feed on you -- tuesday.

Too much shit all at once is the problem. They physically don't have the means to give any of it the proper build-up, and everything ends up feeling average. Even worse when they try to play up the moment, and only the moment, like in this case, since it only ends up breaking immersion and/or soliciting confusion.

Having not played DoS2 in its entirety, i gotta wonder if it's just how Larian does things or if it's a byproduct of trying to make this game feel as big as its franchise, quote unquote fill the shoes (which is ironic, considering the biggest takeaway from any astounding Bioware game is that the first enemy should always be rats or the like, so that what comes later on can truly awe you).

Joined: Feb 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2021
Originally Posted by Sozz
@Niara In regard to the first point I guess I'm not so married to continuity, especially in universes with so many hands in the cookie jar.

As per my previous comment, what exactly is entailed in the term "Greater Deity" is open for debate, it's mechanical meaning on our end as interpreted into in-universe information.

@GM4Him I haven't made it to the new area yet (I've been dragging my feet) but I did see a video of this scene, it's very interesting with regards to everything we've been talking about, but what I haven't seen is what happens if you reach this point without having revealed that Shadowheart is a Sharran, is that possible?

For instance, the events of Descent into Avernus appear to play an not inconsequential role in BG:3's story, how would you take it if Larian rejiggers the story, say Zariel's fall is again retold, or the events took place at a different time, or Duke Raven---whatever died, or was never taken etc. How far does the continuity matter to you, I know you have a limit, it's just a matter of where, and if the retcon is good enough for you.

Doesn't matter. The point is, your characters are making Religion rolls up the wazzoo to see if they know stuff, and if successful, the game tells you. All people on this thread were asking for was this very same thing in the beginning so especially new players aren't asking who in the Hells is Shar and why should they care.

Interestingly, the armor looks like it has a symbol on the chest very similar to Shadowheart's with onyx stones on the shoulders, I think, hard to fully make out, and onyx stones on each side. Very similar style.

Last edited by GM4Him; 31/10/21 05:22 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
I haven't been against this I hope you've noticed, but I do quibble with some of the particulars behind your premise. New players presumably will know to roll with it until it does make sense, I actually enjoy this kind of tension because it's between me and the game, and it can't be replicated after the first playthrough.

Of course I just re-read Dune so maybe I'm not in the right headspace for this argument :p

Last edited by Sozz; 31/10/21 05:26 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Yeah, there've been a few threads on this already, the one titled "BG:3 is an amusement park" being particular in line with how I've received the EA, but I think it's something you find equally in the current D&D meta

Joined: Jul 2021
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jul 2021
Originally Posted by Innateagle
Originally Posted by Sozz
I think the truth of the matter is , the DM considers this issue to be resolved so early on that it isn't a big issue for them.

Larian writing style 101. Shar is no biggy, tadpoles threatening to turn you any moment are whatever, cambions appearing out of the blue are monday, vampires trying to feed on you -- tuesday.

Too much shit all at once is the problem. They physically don't have the means to give any of it the proper build-up, and everything ends up feeling average. Even worse when they try to play up the moment, and only the moment, like in this case, since it only ends up breaking immersion and/or soliciting confusion.

Having not played DoS2 in its entirety, i gotta wonder if it's just how Larian does things or if it's a byproduct of trying to make this game feel as big as its franchise, quote unquote fill the shoes (which is ironic, considering the biggest takeaway from any astounding Bioware game is that the first enemy should always be rats or the like, so that what comes later on can truly awe you).

It's as if someone read a bunch of FR books and picked what sounded cool without any consideration given to scope and pacing.

Joined: Oct 2017
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2017
Originally Posted by Ragitsu
It's as if someone read a bunch of FR books and picked what sounded cool without any consideration given to scope and pacing.
Pretty sure it has been pointed out before. Larian's style is precisely "picking what seems 'cool' then trying to push it as hard as they can". Someone from Larian said that in a past interview. Maybe he was talking about something else, but still. It really fits their style.

Originally Posted by Innateagle
Having not played DoS2 in its entirety, i gotta wonder if it's just how Larian does things or if it's a byproduct of trying to make this game feel as big as its franchise, quote unquote fill the shoes (which is ironic, considering the biggest takeaway from any astounding Bioware game is that the first enemy should always be rats or the like, so that what comes later on can truly awe you).
Very much the same thing in DOS2. Essentially, if you don't get to converse with gods or some similar "greater power beings" on a daily basis by the end of the first third of the game, then the game is not worth playing.

It's the same issue with Pathfinder WotR, tbh. The game tries too hard to be... grandiose. Tries too hard to impress the player. Tries too hard to shower the player with as much "cool and awesomeness" as they can. A goddess just pops out of thin air and starts talking to you without any prior indication, then next moment a demon lord also shows up and joins the convo, and there you are chatting casually with a goddess and a demon lord at the same time. You can say "but they do have a reason to talk to you" - sure, that may not be wrong, but I simply don't find it convincing at all. It just makes me think wow this game is trying too hard to make me feel important.

Also, admittedly, I got the same feeling playing PoE: Deadfire. All the conventions with gods, and all the dialogue options that make you sound like a cheeky rebellious upstart so you may feel "wow look at me I'm talking to these gods like an equal". Ngl they made me wince.

I guess in this day and age everything just gotta go fast.


"We make our choices and take what comes and the rest is void."
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Actually, it's to provide a template for the players to tell a story, within the confines of what's provided. A story teller tells the story. In DnD, the players create the story. This is done through choices they make, dice rolls they make, or fail, and how they choose to go about combat. As a DM, you should have an outline, not a play by play, of what's expected to happen. There are around 50 years of lore to this setting, how much are you going to explain, for how long, before other players in your session get frustrated because resources are available. To your "Shar is...", there are books that cover that in game already. At some point, it's up to a player to find/read them. How many dialog wheel style choices do you provide for your players, instead of them organically asking questions? How are you going to code every possible outcome into a cRPG?
Are you seriously arguing that players should have to read D&D lore books if they want to know things in-game? Players are essential parts to a D&D story, yes, but they don't create the world in most cases. The DM does (either making it up himself or using others' worlds) and it's the DM's responsibility to give out that information to the players when appropriate. There are some cooperative game styles where players can make up information/lore/mechanics to incorporate into the world (obviously I'm not talking about backstories here), but that's certainly not BG3.

As has been said, there is a reason that Religion skill checks exist in D&D. It's so that players can make those checks to gain character&player knowledge about the world.

Yes, I am. That's why the resources exist. The resources would be limited to GMs only otherwise. Some of them actually are, the rest are intended for the players to use to facilitate gameplay.

Religion skill checks exist to test character knowledge. A player that knows everything they need to know about a deity can still fail that roll.

Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Yes, because no TT session ever had players with a Player Handbook, or any of the other myriad of books aimed specifically at the players, right? You must have to spend a few sessions in a row, just explaining things, since you don't require your players to have resources created specifically to prevent that. You see, the problem with trying to translate your TT experience into a video game is that someone around the table is going to have these reference books. That is specifically what they are for. I wonder, how many interruptions of gameplay does it take before your players are suggesting the new player get X, Y and/or Z books? I've played at tables where you weren't allowed to sit down if you didn't have at least a Player's Handbook.

For rules and rulings, yes, players often have books. For lore and history, no, not so much... in fact, never in the years I've been playing have I ever sat at a table where players have cracked lore books mid session, or paused to read up about a fact of the world they're in that they didn't know - not once.

Do you suppose that some of those players have read the resources outside of the game, especially the ones that want to be up on the lore? Time is a finite resource, every TT game I've ever sat at wanted to spend as much time as possible actually advancing the story, instead of sitting in a class room, getting lore that maybe we already know, but Joe doesn't. The DM probably isn't leaving books laying around for the players to actually read either, you know, those books that "break immersion" because a player actually has to read them to gain knowledge that their character may glean from just picking it up. I know I have enough basic lore knowledge that I don't actually read a lot of them, but there are some that I do.

Then there's the irony of the Religion roll, where if a player fails it, they'll be left in the exact same boat as the OP here, totally in the dark about who a deity is, or what having a worshipper in the party might/could mean.

Last edited by robertthebard; 31/10/21 11:39 AM.
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Then there's the irony of the Religion roll, where if a player fails it, they'll be left in the exact same boat as the OP here, totally in the dark about who a deity is, or what having a worshipper in the party might/could mean.

If you read the discussion with a keen eye, you'd see that that is not what is being suggested. It's probably how Larian would do it, but it's not what's being asked after.

Quote
Do you suppose that some of those players have read the resources outside of the game, especially the ones that want to be up on the lore?

A couple, yes, but frankly, myself and my partners are the most lore-knowledgable people that we play with. Pretty much everyone else at our various game tables knows just what they've learned actively playing the game and immersing in the world as the adventure unfolds - they all came in knowing nothing about the game space or the realms, with only.... three exceptions, I think.

It would be a ridiculous dick move of our DMs to insist that these players "Go and do their research". I'd probably refuse to play at a table with a DM who did that, because I know that I'm not going to be getting an immersive game experience from someone like that. Someone that isn't prepared to spin a world around their players, and paint in the details organically, is not going to really deliver a satisfying game experience unless all you're after is the mechanical side of the game.

Quote
every TT game I've ever sat at wanted to spend as much time as possible actually advancing the story,

Then you have my pity and my condolences... if that's your fun then you're welcome to it, of course, but if you've only ever played with players who wilfully cut out one of the broadest and deepest part of the game, because there's no time for immersion and organic roleplay in their roleplaying game... Well, you're missing out.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Then there's the irony of the Religion roll, where if a player fails it, they'll be left in the exact same boat as the OP here, totally in the dark about who a deity is, or what having a worshipper in the party might/could mean.

If you read the discussion with a keen eye, you'd see that that is not what is being suggested. It's probably how Larian would do it, but it's not what's being asked after.

Quote
Do you suppose that some of those players have read the resources outside of the game, especially the ones that want to be up on the lore?

A couple, yes, but frankly, myself and my partners are the most lore-knowledgable people that we play with. Pretty much everyone else at our various game tables knows just what they've learned actively playing the game and immersing in the world as the adventure unfolds - they all came in knowing nothing about the game space or the realms, with only.... three exceptions, I think.

It would be a ridiculous dick move of our DMs to insist that these players "Go and do their research". I'd probably refuse to play at a table with a DM who did that, because I know that I'm not going to be getting an immersive game experience from someone like that. Someone that isn't prepared to spin a world around their players, and paint in the details organically, is not going to really deliver a satisfying game experience unless all you're after is the mechanical side of the game.

Quote
every TT game I've ever sat at wanted to spend as much time as possible actually advancing the story,

Then you have my pity and my condolences... if that's your fun then you're welcome to it, of course, but if you've only ever played with players who wilfully cut out one of the broadest and deepest part of the game, because there's no time for immersion and organic roleplay in their roleplaying game... Well, you're missing out.

You're right, it's not. It's about how a reaction that some players will find perfectly logical being in a dialog, where the OP is acting like it's the only option available. As I said, if they don't have knowledge for a choice to make sense, they should choose a different option. There is information provided that a player can get before they ever have the discussion, that should be enough to let them know if that's appropriate or not. If it's given any other way that's not the narrator spoon feeding it, it won't be adequate, because if they couldn't read the book, and draw an inference of "Good" or "Bad", they won't understand something else they have to read, even if a hyperlink is added to "Shar" in the dialog. It's going to be another case of "Why should I have to have any baseline knowledge, that's the DM's job"...

You can save your pity too. While we were pushing the story forward, context being that we're not spending 2 hours of a 4 hour session explaining basic stuff, like "Evil is bad", we had plenty of tomfoolery fun.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sozz
@Niara In regard to the first point I guess I'm not so married to continuity, especially in universes with so many hands in the cookie jar.

As per my previous comment, what exactly is entailed in the term "Greater Deity" is open for debate, it's mechanical meaning on our end as interpreted into in-universe information.

She is very a much a "Greater Deity" both in the sense of mechanicalisms and setting presence. People of Faerun see her when they look at the changing moon the same way they'd look at the the stormy seas and think Umberlee, or look at thunderous lightning and see Talos. She is central to their mythology to the point of being the Adversary in one of the main creation/apocalypse conflicts of their faith. People see her see her personified in the dark of every night and night sky. Shar has much the same place in the minds of the common Faerunian that the wolf chasing the sun (who will usher in Ragnarok when he finally catches up to and swallow it) had to the ancient Norse -- except while the "sun wolf" is visible only as a rare light phenomena, the battle between Shar and Selune is visibly playing out on an every night basis as the moon waxes and wanes (and that's completely disregarding that time just around a 100 years ago when the two deities became literal flesh and blood and did literal battle in the streets of Waterderp!).

If we put the mechanicalisms of what "Greater Deity" to the side and focus only on how people in the setting think of and experience her: Shar is still a very big deal.


Originally Posted by robertthebard
You're right, it's not. It's about how a reaction that some players will find perfectly logical being in a dialog, where the OP is acting like it's the only option available.

No, OP is saying that none of the responses made sense to them, because the gravity of the situation -- that the narrative clearly expects you to feel in how it presents it -- had not been established. They don't understand why they wouldn't want a Sharite in their party. They don't understand why simply not mentioning who their deity is should feel like they've been lied to. The narrative of the game clearly expects a reaction to this reveal, but the narrative of the game has not previously made the ground work for any kind of reaction.

And the rest of us is saying that this is unfortunate, because because of this lack of establishment of who Shar is pre-emptively to the reveal means that the player is not empowered to make an informed role-playing choice about their character reaction to Shadowheart's reveal (unless they are already familiar with the setting through outside means -- which is, in turn, bad storytelling, because stories should be self-contained enough not to rely on outside knowledge for important character moments). This causes a big clash between what the narrative have presented to you so far and what the narrative suddenly expects you to know about Shar.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by Sozz
@Niara In regard to the first point I guess I'm not so married to continuity, especially in universes with so many hands in the cookie jar.

As per my previous comment, what exactly is entailed in the term "Greater Deity" is open for debate, it's mechanical meaning on our end as interpreted into in-universe information.

She is very a much a "Greater Deity" both in the sense of mechanicalisms and setting presence. People of Faerun see her when they look at the changing moon the same way they'd look at the the stormy seas and think Umberlee, or look at thunderous lightning and see Talos. She is central to their mythology to the point of being the Adversary in one of the main creation/apocalypse conflicts of their faith. People see her see her personified in the dark of every night and night sky. Shar has much the same place in the minds of the common Faerunian that the wolf chasing the sun (who will usher in Ragnarok when he finally catches up to and swallow it) had to the ancient Norse -- except while the "sun wolf" is visible only as a rare light phenomena, the battle between Shar and Selune is visibly playing out on an every night basis as the moon waxes and wanes (and that's completely disregarding that time just around a 100 years ago when the two deities became literal flesh and blood and did literal battle in the streets of Waterderp!).

If we put the mechanicalisms of what "Greater Deity" to the side and focus only on how people in the setting think of and experience her: Shar is still a very big deal.


Originally Posted by robertthebard
You're right, it's not. It's about how a reaction that some players will find perfectly logical being in a dialog, where the OP is acting like it's the only option available.

No, OP is saying that none of the responses made sense to them, because the gravity of the situation -- that the narrative clearly expects you to feel in how it presents it -- had not been established. They don't understand why they wouldn't want a Sharite in their party. They don't understand why simply not mentioning who their deity is should feel like they've been lied to. The narrative of the game clearly expects a reaction to this reveal, but the narrative of the game has not previously made the ground work for any kind of reaction.

And the rest of us is saying that this is unfortunate, because because of this lack of establishment of who Shar is pre-emptively to the reveal means that the player is not empowered to make an informed role-playing choice about their character reaction to Shadowheart's reveal (unless they are already familiar with the setting through outside means -- which is, in turn, bad storytelling, because stories should be self-contained enough not to rely on outside knowledge for important character moments). This causes a big clash between what the narrative have presented to you so far and what the narrative suddenly expects you to know about Shar.

I'd be down for that, if one of the responses didn't say "I don't care". Information is provided, it was just inconvenient, I guess? That's the problem with cherry picking part of a post to reply to, you leave out context that may well flesh out an idea in a particular sentence. I've asked this before, but just how much information do we need at the start of the game, in a new IP, and the OP is stating that DnD is a new IP for them? A "the story so far" tutorial could be longer than some games, we're talking about 50 years of lore. There are at least two books that can be picked up/read in game, possibly before you get to where you have the discussion in question. One of them is at the temple just after you can recruit Gale. Even one of those books will highlight "evil Goddess". If that's not enough information to make one pause, then we're looking at needing some really in depth explanation, and that can be really long. If reading books that are provided as contextual lore to a game is inconvenient or immersion breaking, what is a hyperlink, or even narration going to be? It's not like there's a thread to get rid of the narrator, or reduce the narration. Wait, there is one. So some people think it's an overused mechanic already, but you want to add to it, because someone didn't read, or understand, a lore book?

Again: At some point it's up to the player to fill in gaps in lore, especially if they're new to a franchise that's been around for a long time. In this case, it's about 50 years. Providing basic knowledge is met, with books that can be picked up in game. This isn't a TT session where the player can ask the DM what something means, but even that requires that the player do just that, actually do some footwork to become better informed, if they're interested in being better informed. I love all the "do you really expect players at TT sessions to actually use all the materials that were created for players at a TT session to use" questions. It's hilarious to think that people actually believe that the only resource should be the DM. Why even spend the money creating all of those player specific resources then?

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Are you seriously arguing that players should have to read D&D lore books if they want to know things in-game? [...]
Yes, I am. [...]
Alright, well I think that pretty much sums up the conversation that's been happening over the past few threads and is an irreconcilable difference between us. The only relevant posts left are simply stating opinions so (if) Larian can judge popularity. -1 to this.

Joined: May 2019
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: May 2019
Originally Posted by Ragitsu
Originally Posted by Sozz
I guess I should have said Larian's story, would that have been better?

It is more accurate, yes. Still, that decision (i.e., making Shar a relatively unknown quantity "just because") is jarring when placed alongside three plus decades worth of lore.
Not to mention that Larian devs themselves, and including Swen Vincke, have repeatedly promised that the game will respect and reflect existing FR lore.

And for me, the main reason by far to even be interested in this game is because it is a game set in the Forgotten Realms.

Last edited by kanisatha; 31/10/21 03:36 PM.
Joined: Dec 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Dec 2020
If they let me say "Who?" or "Yea, that was obvious from the circles" then i'd be fine with how it is currently.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Are you seriously arguing that players should have to read D&D lore books if they want to know things in-game? [...]
Yes, I am. [...]
Alright, well I think that pretty much sums up the conversation that's been happening over the past few threads and is an irreconcilable difference between us. The only relevant posts left are simply stating opinions so (if) Larian can judge popularity. -1 to this.

You're absolutely right. Expecting players in a TT session, what was postulated, and responded to, shouldn't be controversial. That's why there are resources, published by TSR, WotC and now Hasbro, since the beginning of DnD, aimed specifically at players, including, but not limited to, the Player's Handbook. IF these resources had been aimed specifically at DMs, you'd have a point. They're not. There are materials aimed exclusively at DMs, and materials for everyone else, including DMs. I'm not sure what's so controversial about expecting players to read some of these materials, or all of them in cases of people that want to consider themselves lore hounds. Again, they are provided for exactly that purpose. It's not like they spent all the money that went into producing them for something to do between versions.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by robertthebard
I'd be down for that, if one of the responses didn't say "I don't care".

Well I'm sorry to have to cut out a line again but I'm going to need you to explain why that option changes anything. That's not the player saying "I don't care" or an option for players who do not care about the lore. That's the character saying "I don't care". In the scenario of the OP, it doesn't change a single thing because OP still doesn't have the understanding to know whether his character cares about it or not. Choosing the "I don't care" option is just an as uninformed choice at that point as choosing any of the other options because they're all dependant on the same context -- knowing about Shar -- and that context has not been given to you.

And no, narration is not going to be considered worse than the status quo, and that thread existing (that despite it's name is not about the removal of the narrator but bringing back the ability to silence the narrator's voice) isn't an argument against the lack of set up being provided for this scene. I'm not even sure why you bothered to bring that thread up, do you think everyone on the internet except you is a single person? I'm not against narration -- in fact I consider the feature of a narrator to be one of the main pros of modern games like BG3 and the Pathfinder games over, say, the old BG games specifically because it enables a greater ability to deliver information and contextual clues to the player.

And again, the information existing in some book or other somewhere within the game is not enough setup for this scene. Even a player that reads every books they pick up might overlook those few, and this isn't some random fact about the setting that you don't need to know -- this is central to Shadowheart's plot, this scene is presented as a big act one moment, in fact the scene is, very much in contrast to how easily said book could be overlooked, decidedly hard to miss out on -- there are dozen of paths set up to lead to that reveal. And in order for the player to be able to react to that reveal, they need knowledge of who Shar is. Therefore, it is to me obvious that the establishment of who Shar is should be just as hard to miss out on as that scene itself -- the context of a story should be delivered inside that story's narrative and not be dependant on the player having happened to have opened an ingame book or not (especially a book in a sidequest location!). It's just storytelling 101 to me -- that moment is presented as far too momentous for what we have now to be adequate.

Compare for example with how well the game establishes the Mindflayers and the tadpole as evil. First you have the intro cinematic with the tadpoling and the abducting of people and the obvious evilousity of the design of it all, then you have the ship you start the actual game on and all the obvious evilousities on it establishing the transformations and also the mind control and, then you have all the other characters from party members to NPCs going on about it and being ready to kill you over it, and so on. The game really, really wants to make sure that you understand this. And of course, this is the central plot of the game. It deserves more set up than the central element to a single companion's plot, I'm not saying anything else. But the lack of establishing who Shar is very similar to if we had gotten no establishment as Mindflayers and tadpoles as being bad, and then were expected by the game to somehow already have this information in a later scene. And "but there is a book about that ingame" wouldn't have satisfied me then either because the game has to actively provide you with what it wants you to know. And it absolutely does expect you to already know who Shar is, that's why the "narrative dissonance" that the OP is describing comes to the forefront in that scene.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Jul 2021
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jul 2021
To misquote Samuel L Jackson: "It's an evil f******g goddess."

Joined: Jul 2021
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Jul 2021

Joined: Sep 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Expecting players in a TT session, what was postulated, and responded to, shouldn't be controversial. That's why there are resources, published by TSR, WotC and now Hasbro, since the beginning of DnD, aimed specifically at players, including, but not limited to, the Player's Handbook. IF these resources had been aimed specifically at DMs, you'd have a point. They're not. There are materials aimed exclusively at DMs, and materials for everyone else, including DMs. I'm not sure what's so controversial about expecting players to read some of these materials, or all of them in cases of people that want to consider themselves lore hounds. Again, they are provided for exactly that purpose. It's not like they spent all the money that went into producing them for something to do between versions.
This is still just your opinion of how you want your games to be played and what the purpose of those books are.

The PHB doesn't go into much detail about Shar. There are all of two lines about her:
Originally Posted by PHB
"the [monastic] order of the Dark Moon is made up of monks dedicated to Shar (goddess of loss)" and "Shar, goddess of darkness and loss | NE, Death, Trickery | Black disk encircled with a border"
Aside from the lack of information, particularly about lore & history regarding Shar, it's unreasonable to expect all players in all games to completely memorize every single line in the PHB. It's even more unreasonable to expect players to have read and memorized every single D&D book on the off chance lore topic X is relevant to the game.

If you DM a game, it's ~fine for you to assign specific books as homework for your players to read, but it's wrong to generalize your preferred DM & gaming style to everyone and treat it like the only correct way to play.

Last edited by mrfuji3; 31/10/21 04:26 PM. Reason: "...expect all players in all games..."
Joined: Oct 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2021
Originally Posted by robertthebard
You're right, it's not. It's about how a reaction that some players will find perfectly logical being in a dialog, where the OP is acting like it's the only option available. As I said, if they don't have knowledge for a choice to make sense, they should choose a different option. There is information provided that a player can get before they ever have the discussion, that should be enough to let them know if that's appropriate or not. If it's given any other way that's not the narrator spoon feeding it, it won't be adequate, because if they couldn't read the book, and draw an inference of "Good" or "Bad", they won't understand something else they have to read, even if a hyperlink is added to "Shar" in the dialog. It's going to be another case of "Why should I have to have any baseline knowledge, that's the DM's job"...

The only option that would really make sense for someone who doesn't know about Shar doesn't exist.
"I don't even know who Shar is" maybe with an option to ask "What's so bad about her?" would probably solve the problem.

Now, if Larian decides that it doesn't make sense for a character to not know about Shar, and that it's out of character for Shadowheart to preach about her, that's fine, but there should be a good way for the player to learn more without having to look through every bookshelf and book pile hoping to find the book they need (if I'm correct, none of the books in the ruins are about Selune and Shar, and instead, the only books mentioning Shar there are about a Cleric of Shar).
Not only that, but most players likely won't even know that they should find a book before getting Shadowheart to say that she follows Shar.

Whether the Narrator mentions why Shar isn't liked, or a link in the dialogue explains, the game should try to get players up to speed before the player chooses an option regarding Shadowheart and Shar.

Last edited by EliasIncarnation; 31/10/21 05:07 PM.
Page 16 of 23 1 2 14 15 16 17 18 22 23

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