Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Firesong
Originally Posted by Deemer
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
I must be the only one who actually finds the repeated skill checks a good thing - keeping thinks unpredictable and beyond the control of a single lucky roll.


Rolling more dice makes the outcome less random, not more. If you were to roll 2d20, for instance, you would have a drastically higher chance of hitting the midrange (high teens low twenties) of the possible outcomes than you would of hitting an extreme (2 or 40). If you just roll a single d20, you are just as likely to roll a 1 as you are to roll a 10.

In the case of multiple skill checks in a row, it just arbitrarily increases your odds of failure. 'More likely to fail' is the exact opposite of 'more random'.


Exactly.



Yeah, and sorry to get all 'Team 5e' on you, but having random rather than guaranteed results would be fine in a better written game. Being more likely to succeed rather than guaranteed to succeed is fine because failure in TTRPG gaming is supposed to lead to more interesting situations and rarely to outright fail-states. It should give the game master a chance to have some fun by humanizing your character and making you react to more out-of-control situations, but all the 'GM' of BG3 wants to do is randomly kill children or force you to fight. It extra sucks because 'it's fun to fail forward!' was supposedly a big talking point around this game when it was being introduced through streams and marketing.

Last edited by Deemer; 10/10/20 10:57 PM.
Joined: Dec 2017
F
addict
Offline
addict
F
Joined: Dec 2017
Originally Posted by Deemer
Originally Posted by Firesong
Originally Posted by Deemer
Originally Posted by Dark_Ansem
I must be the only one who actually finds the repeated skill checks a good thing - keeping thinks unpredictable and beyond the control of a single lucky roll.


Rolling more dice makes the outcome less random, not more. If you were to roll 2d20, for instance, you would have a drastically higher chance of hitting the midrange (high teens low twenties) of the possible outcomes than you would of hitting an extreme (2 or 40). If you just roll a single d20, you are just as likely to roll a 1 as you are to roll a 10.

In the case of multiple skill checks in a row, it just arbitrarily increases your odds of failure. 'More likely to fail' is the exact opposite of 'more random'.


Exactly.



Yeah, and sorry to get all 'Team 5e' on you, but having random rather than guaranteed results would be fine in a better written game. Being more likely to succeed rather than guaranteed to succeed is fine because failure in TTRPG gaming is supposed to lead to more interesting situations and rarely to outright fail-states. It should give the game master a chance to have some fun by humanizing your character and making you react to more out-of-control situations, but all the 'GM' of BG3 wants to do is randomly kill children or force you to fight. It extra sucks because 'it's fun to fail forward!' was supposedly a big talking point around this game when it was being introduced through streams and marketing.


...and I'm like 99% sure that this is actually true.

But there were too many red flags in the whole dice roll mechanic for me to enjoy it. You named two of them which I absolutely - ABSOLUTELY - hate.

I remember how much I enjoyed being able to solve situations in D:OS2 in different ways (example: houndmaster, dogs and red ball).

Here, currently, I feel like the dice decides for me. And thats not what I expect from an RPG. Because this is MY role, not the role of the dice.


#JusticeForKarlach

Petition to save Karlach: https://www.change.org/p/justice-for-karlach
Joined: Sep 2017
L
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
L
Joined: Sep 2017
You seemed to solve Nettie a much different way than I did.
Go along with everything, when she says "Nope, die" beat her up, and use knockout attacks, so you can still feel like a good person.
Side note, was this the first room to use crafting for everyone?

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Haps
Hi.

I've stumbled across a few situations where I had to do several dicerolls in order to succed.
Example: Squishing Edowin's tadpole and (iirc) the Nettie situation.

This is less than ideal design. If something should be hard to achieve then up the target difficulty. Don't make us roll twice.

Noone is is saying "Ah, but did you really hit" and make you roll again when you hit a goblin the first time.


Combat isnt determined with one die roll. It seems weird to want social encounters resolved the same way. They should be resolved with X successes before Y failures though, so its not a one failure ends your chances like it is currently.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
old hand
Offline
old hand
D
Joined: Oct 2020
So ive spend the better part of the last hour trying to win that er..... Conversation? And 3 guesses how many times I managed to pass it? xD

Yeah you guys are right about the implementation of it. Its horrid. Even with guidance which gives a D4 bonus on each skill check I dident get past the 3rd skill a single time.

What I noticed is that the skill checks are just there to be there. You cant try to convince her by forming a narrative or by making counter points to evnentually pursuade her. You just have to keep hitting your head against the brick wall until you either fail and have to attack her or by some miracle will eventually get through to her; which I havent been able to do once while trying to do for an hour straight of quikloading after I failed. Even if the rolls needed to pursuade her are low, eventually you will fail and thats that.

The concept is fine. The way its included needs some work.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Firesong
[
...and I'm like 99% sure that this is actually true.

But there were too many red flags in the whole dice roll mechanic for me to enjoy it. You named two of them which I absolutely - ABSOLUTELY - hate.

I remember how much I enjoyed being able to solve situations in D:OS2 in different ways (example: houndmaster, dogs and red ball).

Here, currently, I feel like the dice decides for me. And thats not what I expect from an RPG. Because this is MY role, not the role of the dice.


To me this reads like you just want to click the usually blatantly obvious "right" choice so you can dump CHA, social spells and skills. You don't get to pick the "kill them" option and have that automatically work either in most cases.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Bossk_Hogg

Combat isnt determined with one die roll. It seems weird to want social encounters resolved the same way. They should be resolved with X successes before Y failures though, so its not a one failure ends your chances like it is currently.


Honestly, if they wanted to have multiple skill checks to swing the conversation back and forth and put some suspense into it before resolving based on your aggregate, that would be an interesting approach. It would make conversation feel a bit more like combat, and even though it breaks from DnD it would still make sense and be satisfying to play out.

The approach they got now though is just frustrating and stupid. What were they even thinking?

Last edited by Deemer; 10/10/20 11:30 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Table top players realize a single die roll can change a good/bad situation instantly. When a DM has multiple rolls it being used to create tension like the Nettie situation. If the tension isn't there, multiple rolls are being used because a DM wanted a different outcome but the player either rolled too good or too poorly. Never let something really important be decided by the dice alone. Meaning, a DM shouldn't let something occur in which only the dice can get a player out of. The player needs to make several mistakes on their own and perhaps that one last die roll determines their fate.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
old hand
Offline
old hand
D
Joined: Oct 2020
I think the idea is fine but the implementation should be adjusted.

Maybe have each test be you alleviating one of Nessie's worries so she eventually concedes, rather then you using things like intimidation to try and pursuade her. Which in this situation would probably do the exact opposite of help your case here. Youre basicly confirming to her that you are a threat rather then debunk it.

It would make you think but still give you ways to pursuade her; some might be more effective then others. For example if she mentions the former druid making an exact point it might be a good start to drop some of the quests as you are making the same point her master did. Some points might not need a test while others (like pursuading her that you arent a threat) might be. Then they could make that one hard to be convincing like it should be but make the rest irrelevant or even easier. That said easy tests can still fail and with RNG arent optimal. I think personally that 1 or 2 tests there or 1 if she notices you make the same point that the missing druid did would eleviate her worries. Or at the very least ease the conversation enough that outright tests arent needed to make your point. Sometimes less is more and I think that applies here.

Now its just a stack of test that you have to complete and what options you pick doesent seem to matter. Which basicly means that 999.999 out of 1.000.000 times you end up having to attack her.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
old hand
Offline
old hand
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mithril
Table top players realize a single die roll can change a good/bad situation instantly. When a DM has multiple rolls it being used to create tension like the Nettie situation. If the tension isn't there, multiple rolls are being used because a DM wanted a different outcome but the player either rolled too good or too poorly. Never let something really important be decided by the dice alone. Meaning, a DM shouldn't let something occur in which only the dice can get a player out of. The player needs to make several mistakes on their own and perhaps that one last die roll determines their fate.

In this case the player did make multiple mistakes though?

They casually told a healer that they have a illithid tadpole in their body.
They followed said healer to a secluded room.
They let the healer slash them with the *cough* antidote.

Prior to the last point the players could back out and escape the 'were fucked' situation and walk off.

The implementation needs work but the situation here is something that does warrant multiple tests. It just needs to be tweaked to make sense and be more forgiving. Its insane in its current implementation...

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
+1

i would stress the point that repetative checks for the same outcome results in repetitive lines of dialogue. Nettie case is awful, somehow however tadpole case is not, but that's good wrinting covering bad design i guess

Joined: Oct 2020
H
Haps Offline OP
stranger
OP Offline
stranger
H
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by mithril
Table top players realize a single die roll can change a good/bad situation instantly. When a DM has multiple rolls it being used to create tension like the Nettie situation. If the tension isn't there, multiple rolls are being used because a DM wanted a different outcome but the player either rolled too good or too poorly. Never let something really important be decided by the dice alone. Meaning, a DM shouldn't let something occur in which only the dice can get a player out of. The player needs to make several mistakes on their own and perhaps that one last die roll determines their fate.


Here's how I would design the encounter for a tabletop game:

Introduction
Medicine check succes: Hm, this druid can't even heal a bird fully. This is probably a waste of time.
Option to leave.

Walking towards backroom
Insight check succes: Her mood has darkened considerably and she doesn't meet our eyes. Something's afoot.
Option to leave.

When entering backroom
Nature check succes: That vial she picked up was wyvern venom.

Nettie speaks again
1+ succes on previous checks: Call Nettie out. Persuasion check to pinky swear to poison self, or murder hobo option
0 previous succeses: Get poisoned. Deception/Intimidate/Persuasion/murder hobo to get antidote.

This I feel will give several character builds a non-lethal way out while building tension, and it won't serve four match points against you.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
S
Joined: Oct 2020
What if the skill checks were to make the final make-or-break one easier/harder? So with 3 skillchecks, if you pass the first 2, the third gets a +2 for your roll, or something?

Joined: Jan 2009
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jan 2009
Originally Posted by Some_Twerp753
What if the skill checks were to make the final make-or-break one easier/harder? So with 3 skillchecks, if you pass the first 2, the third gets a +2 for your roll, or something?


Lowering the DC of the final check with successes would work, but you'd have to allow the conversation to proceed, success or fail, instead of one failure and you're out.

Joined: Oct 2020
G
stranger
Offline
stranger
G
Joined: Oct 2020
I was lucky and passed all rolls first time I talked to her. But yeah those multiple rolls for one purpose seem like bad design to me. Set it up differently or give me one roll which reflects the same low chance of passing 4 rolls in 1. If I see that I need to roll 18 I know that this was meant to be really hard outright.

This kind of thing starts as soon as the wounded mindflayer on the ground by the way.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Haps
Originally Posted by mithril
Table top players realize a single die roll can change a good/bad situation instantly. When a DM has multiple rolls it being used to create tension like the Nettie situation. If the tension isn't there, multiple rolls are being used because a DM wanted a different outcome but the player either rolled too good or too poorly. Never let something really important be decided by the dice alone. Meaning, a DM shouldn't let something occur in which only the dice can get a player out of. The player needs to make several mistakes on their own and perhaps that one last die roll determines their fate.


Here's how I would design the encounter for a tabletop game:

Introduction
Medicine check succes: Hm, this druid can't even heal a bird fully. This is probably a waste of time.
Option to leave.

Walking towards backroom
Insight check succes: Her mood has darkened considerably and she doesn't meet our eyes. Something's afoot.
Option to leave.

When entering backroom
Nature check succes: That vial she picked up was wyvern venom.

Nettie speaks again
1+ succes on previous checks: Call Nettie out. Persuasion check to pinky swear to poison self, or murder hobo option
0 previous succeses: Get poisoned. Deception/Intimidate/Persuasion/murder hobo to get antidote.

This I feel will give several character builds a non-lethal way out while building tension, and it won't serve four match points against you.


I would be fine if they implemented that scene in that manner. When I first encountered that scene I was a bit annoyed that my Ranger character didn't have the option to identify the plant she was holding. Up until she tells you she is trying to kill you there is little to say that doing as she says isn't a bad idea. Then you have to go through the multiple skill checks and frankly, if I'm successful at a "give me the antidote or I'll kill you" type intimidation I expect the result to be a cowed and compliant Nettie not an indifferent one that I have to then intimidate again. Logically, multiple threats of "give it to me or die" should be less threatening not more.

I think the entire multiple successive skill checks for a single action and encouraging a murderhobo approach via mechanics is a terrible idea and needs to be rethought. The only reason I can think of for them doing this is that they wanted to make it a difficult check, but because of the way they have implemented skill rolling they need to ensure a final target number between 1 and 20.

I did eventually manage to succeed at the conversation once, which required a persuasion (DC 9), deception (DC 11, no persuasion option) and another persuasion (DC 9) roll. I assume this means a base DC of 10 for each check, my character had proficiency in persuasion but not deception and despite having a 10 charisma seemed to be suffering from a -2 charisma penalty (from the poison?). On straight rolls this results in an 18% chance of success, with disadvantage (which I assume was also applied due to poison) this drops to a 3% chance of success. For a single skill check this would require a base DC of 18 for persuasion, a non-proficient skill check with an 8 charisma would therefore result in a DC 20 check.

Joined: Jan 2017
C
member
Offline
member
C
Joined: Jan 2017
Originally Posted by Haps
Originally Posted by mithril
Table top players realize a single die roll can change a good/bad situation instantly. When a DM has multiple rolls it being used to create tension like the Nettie situation. If the tension isn't there, multiple rolls are being used because a DM wanted a different outcome but the player either rolled too good or too poorly. Never let something really important be decided by the dice alone. Meaning, a DM shouldn't let something occur in which only the dice can get a player out of. The player needs to make several mistakes on their own and perhaps that one last die roll determines their fate.


Here's how I would design the encounter for a tabletop game:

Introduction
Medicine check succes: Hm, this druid can't even heal a bird fully. This is probably a waste of time.
Option to leave.

Walking towards backroom
Insight check succes: Her mood has darkened considerably and she doesn't meet our eyes. Something's afoot.
Option to leave.

When entering backroom
Nature check succes: That vial she picked up was wyvern venom.

Nettie speaks again
1+ succes on previous checks: Call Nettie out. Persuasion check to pinky swear to poison self, or murder hobo option
0 previous succeses: Get poisoned. Deception/Intimidate/Persuasion/murder hobo to get antidote.

This I feel will give several character builds a non-lethal way out while building tension, and it won't serve four match points against you.



Careful, you might confuse Larian with character agency based on our skills and the ability to use them

Joined: Oct 2020
A
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
A
Joined: Oct 2020
The difficulty and multiple-die-roll questions should be disaggregated. If there was only one check in the Nettle convo, it would have a hellacious DC. It's not like the devs didn't know what the probabilities were.

Joined: Oct 2020
stranger
Offline
stranger
Joined: Oct 2020
Definitely agreed on this. It feels like I'm being tricked by the game because it intends to have me fail instead of being given an actual chance to succeed.

Joined: Dec 2017
F
addict
Offline
addict
F
Joined: Dec 2017
Originally Posted by Dan Quail
Definitely agreed on this. It feels like I'm being tricked by the game because it intends to have me fail instead of being given an actual chance to succeed.


+1.

And having 2 relatively "big" encounters where this happens in the first 2 hours of gameplay is "a bit" too much to be considered a coincidence.

Good vs. bad outcomes should be 50:50.


#JusticeForKarlach

Petition to save Karlach: https://www.change.org/p/justice-for-karlach
Page 2 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

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