Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Mega-threads and Guides The Turn-Based/Real Time with Pause topic

Well yeah, that's why indie games are often more simple in mechanics. A good lead developer then uses the resources available on the systems most critical to the game. So if Larian had a tiny budget, it would make a better RPG to have less recruitable characters and spend more time developing them than to have more characters who are bland. If you want party members with personalities and not just disposable hired guns.

Taking BG as an example, half of the recruitable NPC's were bland and kinda useless. In my opinion it had been better for them to develop more dialog, quests and so on for less characters than to have so many who are just cardboard cut offs. Kivan for example, or that young bard from Beregost. Totally forgettable and really added nothing to the game.

Okay but a game doesn't have to have combat in order to be considered an RPG either. Ditching combat altogether would allow Larian to focus on other things such as rolling dice and crafting shoelaces.

Are you crazy?

I think Disco: Elysium did pretty well as a game and to my knowledge combat is not a focus of the game. Just following his train of thought.

Or Planescape Torment. Which I think is an inferior game to Baldur's Gates exactly because it doesn't have combat. It's a choose your own adventure book in game form and honestly, I'd rather read a book.

I have PS:T installed on my computer and I'm pretty sure there is combat.

Yeah, a little that's unavoidable but it's not very good and laughably easy. So not the focus at all, same as disco elysium apparently. They could have just left it out completely and the game would stay pretty much the same.

True. It has a cult following nonetheless which leads me to believe it doesn't matter if BG3 winds up having one, two, three or more combat modes. The sum of its parts is what will determine whether it is a success in the end. However, making the game accessible to more people could reinforce their decision to purchase it at launch, buy the DLC etc.

Do you think that adding multiple combat modes will do that? I personally don't think it would be a good selling point, more like a curiosity.

Well the combat appears to be the biggest stumbling block for the community thus far. Owlcat's answer is to have both TB and RTwP from what I understand. When their game is released it might have a competitive advantage over BG3 provided that the upcoming Pathfinder is a success too of course.

Yeah I am inclined to agree.
If yomneone added RT combat to XCOM2 I would love it, but would probaly fall back to turn based because the concept of cover is too important and I cannot hope to control all my characters vs the aliens. Some might, but it is a game designed from the ground up to focus on TB.

Same here. The D&D mechanics that are being added (push, drop, flight?, Verticality, interaction as examples) do not lend themselves to RT, at least not as far as I can see. So if those are important, then the decision to go TB makes sense. Doesn't mean the essence of BG isn't lestened for some, it's just a question of what part of BG is important to you, or of MOST importance.

Quite. I often wonder why there's quite so much focus on combat in RPGs.

Combat is usually how XP is rewarded.

Ish. It's also awarded for quest completion, discovery and what-not. I just wish entire RPG designs didn't revolve around combat as being their main purpose. Sure, it's an important part of gameplay, but it's become like that person at a party you don't want to be at who speaks too loudly all the time.

You could easily design an rpg without levels or exp and do character progression through gear and items.

Part of me thinks, "ew, a shooter", but actually I think in some ways it's not a bad approach. Thinking of TES and various other games where the PC can progress to the highest rank of any given guild without even having any skills in the relevant field. And while I'm writing that I'm thinking, "hmm, most of the managers I've encountered IRL."

If most RPGs were not focused on combat, I sure would be wondering why (to say the least).

I like a good story, but it's a game; not a novel. 50/50 combat to story at most, if not a good amount +/-

Because BG is a computer game first, a forgotten realms game second, and an RPG last.

Planescape torment is nowhere inferior to BG nor it does abolish combat - it doesn't emphasise it.

A game like D&D is combat oriented anyway BUT absolutely nothing forces you to put it everywhere in your adventure.
When I am DM, I reward roleplay a lot to encourage it.
Does the player respect his alignment, background, race and class? Is he trying to bring his character to life?
For example, I sometimes grant bonuses or additional penalties depending on the roleplay of a player on a Persuasion or Intimidation attempt.
If he just says "I'm trying to intimidate him", I don't even give a throw and I pretend the player hasn't said anything.
What I ask my players is to play a role not just being there with their character sheet and rolling dice.

For my part, I try to give life to all NPCs with a way of speaking that is specific to each. As DM, I play all the other roles and I want to make it alive, realistic and captivating. It is not always easy but I try.
This is what RPG letters really mean. Nothing else.