Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 9 of 11 1 2 7 8 9 10 11
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Theliel
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by Buttery_Mess
The thing about D&D 5e is that your character isn't really built until they hit third level and doesn't come into their stride until 4th


This is a bad design choice. Maybe it works in tabletop, but in a video game it's boring. To make matters worse, combat at low levels is rocket tag. This isn't even a new problem - Planescape: Torment started at level 5.


Yup. Playtesters pointed this out.

Mike Mearls stated multiple times, they expected you to do 1-3 once, and then just start at level 3 after that. Level 3 was the new level 1, they wanted it to be a 'simple' game at level 1 with very few choices and things to learn. And then they left spellcasters with full casting + cantrips at level 1 instead of starting with only a cantrip, then specialty, then getting 1st level at level 3 because gods forbid casters be on the same footing.

Of course, as we've seen, no one skips to level 3 - certainly not any of the branded products.

Which is just annoying.

As for 'pure' 5e - great. Do it. Watch the general public bound hard off the 'pure' 5e rules because they are mediocre and shallow at best when TTRGP scene has dozens of complex and rewarding games to go play.



I have started every one of my parties at level 3 for yearrrrs. Its annoying as a DM to run level 1 stuff and just wastes our time getting into the fun stuff.


What is the problem you are solving? Does your proposed change solve the problem? Is your change feasible? What else will be affected by your change? Will your change impact revenue? Does your change align with the goals and strategies of the organizations (Larian, WotC)?
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Orbax

I have started every one of my parties at level 3 for yearrrrs. Its annoying as a DM to run level 1 stuff and just wastes our time getting into the fun stuff.


Weird both as a DM and a player I greatly enjoy low level play. Maybe it is because I think first edition is fun. The swingy combat, and feeling not like a hero, but some unexperienced peasant fighting against odds is great fun for me. And when I DM my players want to RP as much as possible during the first sessions to establish their characters, and low level adventures are great for that.



Joined: Oct 2020
T
stranger
Offline
stranger
T
Joined: Oct 2020
I see some of the OP's points on the game in its current stage. But I would like the game to opne up more before judging to hard on it. Like making it to level 5.

Joined: Oct 2020
C
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by gish
For all the people, who want to take 5e out of the game and make it more like DOS.

You realize that the DOS franchise already exists, its massively popular, and is Larian's flagship franchise, right? Which means that DOS3 is definitely going to come out at some point.

Why not let DnD fans have their game, instead of demanding for a DOS clone when we already know we'll be seeing another DOS game in the future?


I've seen this take posted so many times in just a few days and I can't read it any other way than just trying to silence all of the posters who aren't diehard 5e fans to shut up and leave. Either these posts are in bad faith, or you grossly misunderstand the purpose of opening up the game to early access and soliciting feedback.

Telling people to go back and play a years old game they've likely put 100+ hours or more into is not a good or convincing argument - it is simply an attempt to silence dissent. Telling people "oh just wait for the next game, they'll do an OS game next time" is a realistic proposal for something that comes around maybe 2 or 3 times a decade - it's just telling people to f-off. This is not your game. You have no ownership whatsoever over this product. You do not get to define what it means to be a fan of the BG series, D&D, OS, or anything else.

As I said before, everyone here is (hopefully) trying to provide feedback to make the game better. Obviously there will be differences of opinion, but not all opinions hold equal weight. "because D&D" is not a valid reason for, well, anything. Suggestions should be backed with a rationale for why they will improve the experience of playing this computer video game. "just make it 5e" is not that - it is dogma.

Originally Posted by Theliel

As for 'pure' 5e - great. Do it. Watch the general public bound hard off the 'pure' 5e rules because they are mediocre and shallow at best when TTRGP scene has dozens of complex and rewarding games to go play.


Also this.

Joined: Oct 2020
G
stranger
Offline
stranger
G
Joined: Oct 2020
A. This is a licensed product from Wizards of the Coast, the owners/producers of DnD.
B. The entire point of the game is to implement 5e. That's been the main talking point since the very beginning.

That's all the "rationale" you need.

Last edited by gish; 13/10/20 02:59 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by clanpot

I've seen this take posted so many times in just a few days and I can't read it any other way than just trying to silence all of the posters who aren't diehard 5e fans to shut up and leave. Either these posts are in bad faith, or you grossly misunderstand the purpose of opening up the game to early access and soliciting feedback.


If you can't read it any other way than "diehard" fans trying to force people out, you are taking quite a hostile stance yourself. And since the game is marketed as both BG and 5e, it should be somewhat understandable that people to some degree feel upset/disappointed when other people want to turn it into something (for the lack of a better term) else. I hate arcade style shooters, but lets say I participated in a Call of Duty alpha, I actually think my feedback would be less valuable because I hate the core of what the franchise is to fans. That is my subjective opinion though.


Originally Posted by clanpot

Telling people to go back and play a years old game they've likely put 100+ hours or more into is not a good or convincing argument - it is simply an attempt to silence dissent. Telling people "oh just wait for the next game, they'll do an OS game next time" is a realistic proposal for something that comes around maybe 2 or 3 times a decade - it's just telling people to f-off. This is not your game. You have no ownership whatsoever over this product. You do not get to define what it means to be a fan of the BG series, D&D, OS, or anything else.


This argument is a bit messy, but I will try to address it nonetheless: Remember that it goes both ways. Many a post in the forum goes like this "Go play Pathfinder Kingmaker if you want a TTRPG ruleset". Which is ironic since the game is marketed as a 5e game. And you have posts like this "5e is boring/bad etc, only purists/diehard fans like it". Which is untrue and an attempt to paint some of us as fanatics.

I do not see it as silencing dissent. I see it as an attempt to express frustration. BG fans haven't gotten a BG game in the last two decades. So it should be somewhat understandable that some fans get annoyed when DoS fans want this game, titled Baldurs Gate 3, to be more like DoS.

Whom gets to define what is a poor attempt at a motte and bailey argument? It is also ironic that you mention that since you want to define us as "diehards".

Originally Posted by clanpot

As I said before, everyone here is (hopefully) trying to provide feedback to make the game better. Obviously there will be differences of opinion, but not all opinions hold equal weight. "because D&D" is not a valid reason for, well, anything. Suggestions should be backed with a rationale for why they will improve the experience of playing this computer video game. "just make it 5e" is not that - it is dogma.


I agree all opinions do not hold equal weight. If you dislike 5e your opinion should hold less weight in my opinion. Your opinions regarding 5e might be 100% valid, but with the current marketing, Larian is trying to reach the 10 million+ people who play/like 5e. Maybe they can reach more people if they abandon 5e, but then the marketing is dishonest at best. And if the goal is to make the game tenable for as many people as possible, it should probably have been more like Withcer 3. I hope Larian will release some design goals so we can stop having these silly arguments.

Neither do I see many of these "Because 5e" arguments you are referring to. And those types of posts at least has some validity because of the marketing of the game. While posts like "No because TTRPG and DnD is boring" have no validity at all.





Joined: Oct 2020
C
apprentice
Offline
apprentice
C
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Ascorius

This argument is a bit messy, but I will try to address it nonetheless: Remember that it goes both ways. Many a post in the forum goes like this "Go play Pathfinder Kingmaker if you want a TTRPG ruleset". Which is ironic since the game is marketed as a 5e game. And you have posts like this "5e is boring/bad etc, only purists/diehard fans like it". Which is untrue and an attempt to paint some of us as fanatics.

I do not see it as silencing dissent. I see it as an attempt to express frustration. BG fans haven't gotten a BG game in the last two decades. So it should be somewhat understandable that some fans get annoyed when DoS fans want this game, titled Baldurs Gate 3, to be more like DoS.

couple things here
- We're all frustrated
- I agree that any post suggesting someone go play a different game is a bad post. I've never suggested anyone go play kingmaker or toee or whatever to get their D&D rules fix. That would not be productive, and anyone posting something like that is wasting electricity.
- Please do not try to divide the userbase here as "BG fans" vs "D:OS fans". I'm a fan of both, I jumped for joy when BG3 was announced, and doubly so because Larian was doing because they've proven they can make a great game.

Originally Posted by Ascorius

Whom gets to define what is a poor attempt at a motte and bailey argument? It is also ironic that you mention that since you want to define us as "diehards".
Re-read the post I quoted.

Originally Posted by Ascorius

I agree all opinions do not hold equal weight. If you dislike 5e your opinion should hold less weight in my opinion. Your opinions regarding 5e might be 100% valid, but with the current marketing, Larian is trying to reach the 10 million+ people who play/like 5e. Maybe they can reach more people if they abandon 5e, but then the marketing is dishonest at best. And if the goal is to make the game tenable for as many people as possible, it should probably have been more like Withcer 3. I hope Larian will release some design goals so we can stop having these silly arguments.

I didn't say the aim should be to maximize appeal. We all know we're getting a fantasy RPG with turn based combat. If that's not your cup of tea, you didn't shell out $60 for an early access.

With regards to the marketing, the game is based on 5e, and they've already made loads of departures from RAW. In my opinion, those changes have yielded an improved gameplay experience than a strict implementation of the rules would have. And yea, a roadmap laying out how much farther they're willing to go would help a lot.
Originally Posted by Ascorius

Neither do I see many of these "Because 5e" arguments you are referring to.

The post above yours literally is one.

Joined: Oct 2020
Z
stranger
Offline
stranger
Z
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by clanpot
Originally Posted by gish
For all the people, who want to take 5e out of the game and make it more like DOS.

You realize that the DOS franchise already exists, its massively popular, and is Larian's flagship franchise, right? Which means that DOS3 is definitely going to come out at some point.

Why not let DnD fans have their game, instead of demanding for a DOS clone when we already know we'll be seeing another DOS game in the future?


I've seen this take posted so many times in just a few days and I can't read it any other way than just trying to silence all of the posters who aren't diehard 5e fans to shut up and leave. Either these posts are in bad faith, or you grossly misunderstand the purpose of opening up the game to early access and soliciting feedback.

Telling people to go back and play a years old game they've likely put 100+ hours or more into is not a good or convincing argument - it is simply an attempt to silence dissent. Telling people "oh just wait for the next game, they'll do an OS game next time" is a realistic proposal for something that comes around maybe 2 or 3 times a decade - it's just telling people to f-off. This is not your game. You have no ownership whatsoever over this product. You do not get to define what it means to be a fan of the BG series, D&D, OS, or anything else.

As I said before, everyone here is (hopefully) trying to provide feedback to make the game better. Obviously there will be differences of opinion, but not all opinions hold equal weight. "because D&D" is not a valid reason for, well, anything. Suggestions should be backed with a rationale for why they will improve the experience of playing this computer video game. "just make it 5e" is not that - it is dogma.

Originally Posted by Theliel

As for 'pure' 5e - great. Do it. Watch the general public bound hard off the 'pure' 5e rules because they are mediocre and shallow at best when TTRGP scene has dozens of complex and rewarding games to go play.


Also this.


I agree with your assessment of the dnd community and how they act towards others.

From my little exposure of the dnd community, it's eye opening how they act. They clearly only want a strickly 100% dnd game. Many are rude to everyone that disagrees. Almost all responses are the same, like 'but this is dnd' and referencing a rule book like it's the Bible.

I have played hundreds of hours of DOS games and have exhausted all of the story, but play for the combat mostly. It would be nice to play another good game with fun mechanics and a new story. From my experience, dnd mechanics are boring, and don't work well in a video like this. I'm actually confused why people want a faster combat experience, because it's a strategy game. It's a bad idea to strip away mechanics to speed up combat.

From my understanding, dnd rules are not good enough in a video game for the majority. If that was true, then the more dnd like games would have sold better and gotten the rights to make BG3. It's not a fluke that DOS is the best selling rpg of its kind. Also, dnd table top can have house rules and people can change the rules to their liking. And the experience is completely different compared to a video game.

After learning about dnd, I see many references and systems that are inspired by dnd, but changed for a better experience for a turn based, strategy rpg. The bedroll is the quick and easy version of resting. The source spells in DOS are the strong spells, but they don't make up the majority of spells. Most of dnd spells require rest points, because they are 'strong', but in a video game, one-shot-kill spells would make it too easy and boring. That's why rest points on weakened spells don't work. The whole experience is off and doesn't work well. I feel like it's fine to take inspiration from previous games, the good mechanics and ideas, and incorporate them into a new modern game.

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

couple things here
- We're all frustrated
- I agree that any post suggesting someone go play a different game is a bad post. I've never suggested anyone go play kingmaker or toee or whatever to get their D&D rules fix. That would not be productive, and anyone posting something like that is wasting electricity.
- Please do not try to divide the userbase here as "BG fans" vs "D:OS fans". I'm a fan of both, I jumped for joy when BG3 was announced, and doubly so because Larian was doing because they've proven they can make a great game.


I wasn't dividing. I wrote: Some fans. I could have been clearer though and not written DoS fans, but some DoS fans.

Originally Posted by clanpot

Re-read the post I quoted.


No you wrote:

Originally Posted by clanpot

I've seen this take posted so many times in just a few days and I can't read it any other way than just trying to silence all of the posters who aren't diehard 5e fans to shut up and leave.


To me at least, it seems like an attempt to paint people as diehard fans. It is your interpretation of their intent, not a quote.

Originally Posted by clanpot

I didn't say the aim should be to maximize appeal. We all know we're getting a fantasy RPG with turn based combat. If that's not your cup of tea, you didn't shell out $60 for an early access.

With regards to the marketing, the game is based on 5e, and they've already made loads of departures from RAW. In my opinion, those changes have yielded an improved gameplay experience than a strict implementation of the rules would have. And yea, a roadmap laying out how much farther they're willing to go would help a lot.


I can counter that by saying we all knew we were getting a turn based rpg based on 5e. So why did you shell out 60 dollars for an EA if you dislike 5e or think its bland or whatever?

Based on 5e. The language is vague. But consider this: People like me, and I think there are many others, understand that changes need to be made when translating TTRPG into video game form. So when I hear based on 5e, I think of changes to illusion spells etc. Spells and abilities that would be very hard to implement mechanically. But many of the mechanics they have changed, would have been easy to implement. The marketing language wasn't "loosely based on 5e". And you are basically saying its better because they have steered away from RAW. Which is the same as saying, it would be better if they stuck harder to RAW. Not very constructive.

Personally I think the changes are for the worse. No flanking (I know that is an optional rule from RAW), but backstabbing instead. Backstabbing requires no tactics as melee. You just move around them and get free advantage. You do not have to consider or weigh if you should do something to get advantage, you just follow a recipe: Run around and get advantage. Why not implement flanking instead? At least it requires some thinking and positioning.

Shove as an action is also for the worse in my opinion. Instead of weighing the option between hitting or shoving someone down a cliff, I just do both. Not only that but feats like shield master becomes useless, and open hand monk looses some of its its luster. Shove is also more than strong enough as an action when you have so many places to shove people down.

My subjective view is that a good tactical game forces me to make hard choices.

Rogue has lost its identity completely. They are not skill monkeys, and everyone can disengage as a bonus action (this will affect monk too). At least they still have sneak attack (albeit a weird version of it). Changing core aspects of a class is in most cases, not all, a negative in my book. People like to recreate their favorite characters from the table.

I could also argue that the warlock class has lost some of its identity as the cantrip master. Currently a firebolt has a higher damage average than an eldritch blast with agonizing blast. If you target moves after you hit them, the firebolt even beats a eldritch blast+hex. There are many worrying balance changes.

If damaging surfaces from everything will make the game more fun or not, is subjective. But considering the amount of damaging area spells from RAW at higher levels: Spike growth, Fireball, Cloudkill, Firewall, Wall of Thorns, Hurricane, Hunger of Hadar etc, I think the battlefield will be extremely messy considering the fact that nearly everything creates surfaces.

Those are some of the changes that make the game worse for me. I also have faith in the 5e system and its ruleset. If people think I am a fanatic for thinking that, then so be it. 5E isn't even my favorite system, but I have fun playing or DM-ing it. And I believe it would translate well into a game.


Joined: Jun 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Jun 2020
Originally Posted by Ascorius
Originally Posted by clanpot

couple things here
- We're all frustrated
- I agree that any post suggesting someone go play a different game is a bad post. I've never suggested anyone go play kingmaker or toee or whatever to get their D&D rules fix. That would not be productive, and anyone posting something like that is wasting electricity.
- Please do not try to divide the userbase here as "BG fans" vs "D:OS fans". I'm a fan of both, I jumped for joy when BG3 was announced, and doubly so because Larian was doing because they've proven they can make a great game.


I wasn't dividing. I wrote: Some fans. I could have been clearer though and not written DoS fans, but some DoS fans.

Originally Posted by clanpot

Re-read the post I quoted.


No you wrote:

Originally Posted by clanpot

I've seen this take posted so many times in just a few days and I can't read it any other way than just trying to silence all of the posters who aren't diehard 5e fans to shut up and leave.


To me at least, it seems like an attempt to paint people as diehard fans. It is your interpretation of their intent, not a quote.

Originally Posted by clanpot

I didn't say the aim should be to maximize appeal. We all know we're getting a fantasy RPG with turn based combat. If that's not your cup of tea, you didn't shell out $60 for an early access.

With regards to the marketing, the game is based on 5e, and they've already made loads of departures from RAW. In my opinion, those changes have yielded an improved gameplay experience than a strict implementation of the rules would have. And yea, a roadmap laying out how much farther they're willing to go would help a lot.


I can counter that by saying we all knew we were getting a turn based rpg based on 5e. So why did you shell out 60 dollars for an EA if you dislike 5e or think its bland or whatever?

Based on 5e. The language is vague. But consider this: People like me, and I think there are many others, understand that changes need to be made when translating TTRPG into video game form. So when I hear based on 5e, I think of changes to illusion spells etc. Spells and abilities that would be very hard to implement mechanically. But many of the mechanics they have changed, would have been easy to implement. The marketing language wasn't "loosely based on 5e". And you are basically saying its better because they have steered away from RAW. Which is the same as saying, it would be better if they stuck harder to RAW. Not very constructive.

Personally I think the changes are for the worse. No flanking (I know that is an optional rule from RAW), but backstabbing instead. Backstabbing requires no tactics as melee. You just move around them and get free advantage. You do not have to consider or weigh if you should do something to get advantage, you just follow a recipe: Run around and get advantage. Why not implement flanking instead? At least it requires some thinking and positioning.

Shove as an action is also for the worse in my opinion. Instead of weighing the option between hitting or shoving someone down a cliff, I just do both. Not only that but feats like shield master becomes useless, and open hand monk looses some of its its luster. Shove is also more than strong enough as an action when you have so many places to shove people down.

My subjective view is that a good tactical game forces me to make hard choices.

Rogue has lost its identity completely. They are not skill monkeys, and everyone can disengage as a bonus action (this will affect monk too). At least they still have sneak attack (albeit a weird version of it). Changing core aspects of a class is in most cases, not all, a negative in my book. People like to recreate their favorite characters from the table.

I could also argue that the warlock class has lost some of its identity as the cantrip master. Currently a firebolt has a higher damage average than an eldritch blast with agonizing blast. If you target moves after you hit them, the firebolt even beats a eldritch blast+hex. There are many worrying balance changes.

If damaging surfaces from everything will make the game more fun or not, is subjective. But considering the amount of damaging area spells from RAW at higher levels: Spike growth, Fireball, Cloudkill, Firewall, Wall of Thorns, Hurricane, Hunger of Hadar etc, I think the battlefield will be extremely messy considering the fact that nearly everything creates surfaces.

Those are some of the changes that make the game worse for me. I also have faith in the 5e system and its ruleset. If people think I am a fanatic for thinking that, then so be it. 5E isn't even my favorite system, but I have fun playing or DM-ing it. And I believe it would translate well into a game.



+5

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

I agree with your assessment of the dnd community and how they act towards others.

From my little exposure of the dnd community, it's eye opening how they act. They clearly only want a strickly 100% dnd game. Many are rude to everyone that disagrees. Almost all responses are the same, like 'but this is dnd' and referencing a rule book like it's the Bible.


TTRPG's has been my favorite hobby for over 20 years, and never have I met more open, fun and cool group of people. No video game community comes close. And the rulebook is the bible *sarcasm*.

Originally Posted by Zebico


I have played hundreds of hours of DOS games and have exhausted all of the story, but play for the combat mostly. It would be nice to play another good game with fun mechanics and a new story. From my experience, dnd mechanics are boring, and don't work well in a video like this. I'm actually confused why people want a faster combat experience, because it's a strategy game. It's a bad idea to strip away mechanics to speed up combat.


I have many thousand hours in TTRPG's if we want to compare hours. Jokes aside, your comments betray the fact that you have never played DnD. Faster and stripped down mechanics? What are you talking about? DoS has more shallow mechanics than DnD.

Originally Posted by Zebico

From my understanding, dnd rules are not good enough in a video game for the majority. If that was true, then the more dnd like games would have sold better and gotten the rights to make BG3. It's not a fluke that DOS is the best selling rpg of its kind. Also, dnd table top can have house rules and people can change the rules to their liking. And the experience is completely different compared to a video game.


There hasn't really been faithful video game translation of 5e to my knowledge. Not by a proper dev at least. And yes people use house rules, but usually they do not change core concepts like classes.

Originally Posted by Zebico

After learning about dnd, I see many references and systems that are inspired by dnd, but changed for a better experience for a turn based, strategy rpg. The bedroll is the quick and easy version of resting. The source spells in DOS are the strong spells, but they don't make up the majority of spells. Most of dnd spells require rest points, because they are 'strong', but in a video game, one-shot-kill spells would make it too easy and boring. That's why rest points on weakened spells don't work. The whole experience is off and doesn't work well. I feel like it's fine to take inspiration from previous games, the good mechanics and ideas, and incorporate them into a new modern game.


I think the Vancian magic system worked well in the BG series so far. They are not modern games, but oh well. And I see no reason for why DnD spells would be too powerful in a video game. In a video game you at least have some limit to how smart the players can be when utilizing those spells.

It is a bit weird that you criticize the DnD community, all the while patronizing something you obviously know nothing about.

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


There hasn't really been faithful video game translation of 5e to my knowledge. Not by a proper dev at least. And yes people use house rules, but usually they do not change core concepts like classes.



Solasta Crown of the Magister is pretty true to RAW and there is a free demo on steam.

Last edited by CrestOfArtorias; 13/10/20 08:37 AM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Ascorius

It is a bit weird that you criticize the DnD community, all the while patronizing something you obviously know nothing about.



+1.

If you carefully read through the different threads, people complain about :
- Surfaces
- Balance
- Lack of class flavor

Weirdly enough (sarcasm), those are the things Larian did change from 5e to make it more DOS-like. And those changes weren't justified at all for the sake of videogame adaptation. I would have had much more fun playing this game without surfaces everywhere and without the ability to spam magic missile scrolls with my fighter. And I bet I'm not alone on this given how this forum looks.

We don't complain about Larian having to change 5e rules for the sake of making a fun game. We complain about them doing it for the sake of implementing their own DOS mechanics instead, which makes the game feel nothing like a D&D experience.

Last edited by Temperance; 13/10/20 02:11 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
G
stranger
Offline
stranger
G
Joined: Oct 2020
If I'm in early access for Street Fighter 6 and someone says "The problem with SF6 is that its a 2D fighting game. It should be an action platformer." then I have every right to dismiss their opinion as counter-productive and ridiculous.

I feel the same when someone says "The problem with BG3 is that its based on DnD. Please remove DnD from this licensed DnD franchise game." Its not even worth talking about. Its not going to happen because WotC was shopping BG3 around specifically to find a developer to make a 5e game and they handpicked Larian to do so. 5e isn't going anywhere.

Joined: Jul 2009
I
old hand
Offline
old hand
I
Joined: Jul 2009
5E is a big problem because it is a very dumbed down version of D&D with hardly any options in it. So when Larian removes every "non D&D" part of the combat it will result in a very boring game.
Whats more, they have reduced how high a bonus can go (bounded accuracy), but kept the D20. This leads to RNG being the main factor which decides if you succeed or not. No matter how much you push a stat or dump it, in the end mainly the D20 matters while all your choices only having a minimal influence.
So there is really no way to play a peaceful negotiator and an intimidating brute, etc. because it is not your character design which influences what happens in the game.

So yeah, 5E is the big problem of the game because with its extremely simple design it holds it back.

The other big problem I see is on Larian, namely the Origin system. Or rather that the game basically expects you to play as one of the DMPCs to get all their quests and stories. If you dare to make your own character you won't get anything to compensate you though and only have the bare minimum of story about yourself.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Hello Milkfred, and thank you for detailing your issues. I think that a lot of this is going to boil down to "YMMV", but I'll throw my 2 gold into the ring.

Originally Posted by Milkfred


1. Skill Checks are Boring

BG3's skill checks have a problem - they, without fail, feel like they fit the mould of succeed or fail. With success meaning you do the thing you wanted to do and fail meaning you don't, and often end up in a fight.

<snip>

And you don't even get experience for making the skill checks either.

<snip>

Oh, and the fact that so many of them are just DC10 (aka coin toss) is another related problem. I assume a lot of the numbers can and will be changed, but the underlying structural issue of it not being fun or interesting to fail is a deeper problem.



To take your sub points one by one.

Any given roll of the dice can be "boring"; I think that it's about context. And depending on the game, there can be a TON of "things to roll for" (say.. Harnmaster) or very generic/few types of rolls (FUDGE/FATE).

As for "experience" it's not from any roll of the dice, no matter what for; skill check/saving throw/attack roll, rather it is from the sum total of the interaction "defeat" or "success" regarding the encounter. The fact that in an online setting it's much harder to give experience for "dealing with" or "negotiating" rather than bypassing, is an inherent system problem. I'm not sure how to get past that.

Target number "coin toss"; I disagree, as there have been quite a few skill checks for me so far that had 6, 4 or even in two cases 1 as the target. Reminds me of tabletop when the CHARACTER has the skill and the PLAYER is being a jerk, and the DM sets up a roll, because "the character can probably do this" but because of jerkiness, lets just check and see if Karma wants to F you up. (oh for the sake of things I will throw in that our convention is that all "known" rolls are made visibly so you will know if you succeeded). There are some rolls that the DM makes, and some so subtly that the players will never know what they don't know....but more on that later.


Originally Posted by Milkfred


2. Story Elements are Missing/The Rest Mechanic

The first time I went to camp, a demon showed up and I felt like I'd missed a few pages. So, on my second playthrough, I made it a habit to go to camp whenever a party member talked about being tired. This improved a lot of things by a drastic amount, and smoothed over a lot of initial issues I'd had with the plot and characters. I feel like Larian may add in a fatigue mechanic at some point, but this is a pretty drastic issue.

<snippage>

At a certain point, Lae'zel mentions that you should be careful about going around and telling people you have a worm in your brain. But this had come after Nettie had already tried to kill me. If the player has been told that, hey, maybe don't go around telling people you're going to turn into a Mind Flayer, it might alleviate the issue that someone tries to kill them over it.

I really like the rest mechanic, but <snippage> But without any sort of mechanic, how often should I be going to rest? And what am I missing if I don't?



To the first point (should we talk about the worm in our brains); right away off the ship the first encounter kind of tells you that individuals will not react positively when they think you are in any way part of/tainted by/whatever by a Mind Flayer. Since that encounter is pretty hard to miss (and granted, I've been known to miss things more obvious) it's reasonable to suspect that's an important thing to keep in mind.

As for the rest mechanic....I've been frustrated because it's severely bugged in our multiplayer games, but you had mentioned that by resting when various NPCs mentioned they were tired, things were better. So there is an in game cue of sorts.

Originally Posted by Milkfred

3. Players Want to Experience Everything

A solution to the Nettie thing is to just not talk to her. But players generally want to experience all the content they can in a single playthrough. Having a consequence be 'you just don't get to do something' is related to my first point. I'd put a few other things under this umbrella - like Perception checks as you're exploring - as being similarly annoying. What did I miss? Who knows, but now I have this feeling in the back of my head that I'm missing out on something. Was it something that I'd think was cool? A neat bit of lore? Something to make Lae'zel like me? I can tell myself that it was probably just two gold pieces and a fork, but my brain will insist otherwise.


Had to quote your whole thing here because it's cool and well written. However this points out (yet again) one of the difficulties in playing with a computer as a GM is that the programmers have to decide if the "background rolls" are going to be done in a wya that the player knows...or just "in the background."

I like the use of stat checks... when my bestie's Wizard looked at the control panel on the ship, she could figure out some of what it could do. When my Ranger took a look, it was a bunch of random buttons. That makes SENSE to me and I like it.

Originally Posted by Milkfred

4. Gameplay and 'Choices'

Players draw a distinction between choices in dialogue and choices in gameplay.


????? how is dialogue NOT part of gameplay, ESPECIALLY when describing a game as a "role playing game".

Originally Posted by Milkfred

Going into combat with Nettie to get the antidote is not seen as a 'choice.'


It is a choice. It is ALSO the result of previous choices made by the various characters. In a battle the "killing blow" does not somehow invalidate that there was a battle, that there may have been words or threats before the battle and there will be consequences after it. I will say that I did NOT kill Nettie and my character did have some very interesting consequences to that set of choices.

Originally Posted by Milkfred

4. Stat/Class (Im)Balance

The fact that Charisma controls all of the 'roleplaying' skills is pretty much absurd. I understand that it's how the 5e system is, but that's my point - the system sucks when it's being run by a machine.


Two points:

First "controls" is not accurate as persuasion also plays a role

Second it's no more absurd than using strength to determine damage bonuses, or using dexterity to adjust stealth. The point of having stats is that they mean something.


Originally Posted by Milkfred

5. Modifiers are Boring

Pretty self-explanatory. The player gets +x on the dice roll based on their stats and/or proficiency bonus. Yawn.

Where are the circumstantial bonuses? Where's the character, where's the history?


Ahem... the first sentence above is the answer to your questions below. Proficiencies, stats, all of that is inherently part of your character and their history. This is why I prefer to create characters rather than use pre-made ones; I'm CHOOSING the skills, the background, the class to reflect history and experience.


Originally Posted by Milkfred

6. Combat Downgrade

Move/Standard Action/Free Action is a step down from Divinity: Original Sin 2's AP-oriented combat system. BG3's combat is perfectly fine, but it's also not nearly as interesting. Again, the issue is that BG3 is doing it as close to tabletop as possible.


So what you are saying is that tabletop gaming is tricky to translate into an online game.

I think we can all agree on that.

OH and one last thing you said caught my attention:

Originally Posted by Milkfred


missing loot from shoving people into pits.


Climb down and get it then. Or don't, and don't get it. How is it in the realm of any sort of believeability to "get loot" unless you actually get it. Unless you are playing Shadowrun or Cyberpunk and you are putting the body in a pit before you hack their savings accounts and steal all their cred. But that's a way different game.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by clavis

I've never liked charisma as the go to skill for intimidation, believing it should be either Con, or strength based.


I would disagree. My reasoning is that hacking something apart, doing damage, bending bars - these are all strength based. It is a physical interaction between an individual and a physical object.

Intimidation is not about "can I bash your head in" (which as you point out, Strength could speak to) but "you can avoid getting your head bashed in if you do this thing for me" which is a communication interaction between two entities.

I could see the idea for the "bash your head in conversation" to get a bonus if the person was huge, but then I could make a situational case for pretty much any stat, class or proficiency. But it's based on communication and interaction - and that - in DnD, is represented by Charisma.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by gish
If I'm in early access for Street Fighter 6 and someone says "The problem with SF6 is that its a 2D fighting game. It should be an action platformer." then I have every right to dismiss their opinion as counter-productive and ridiculous.

I feel the same when someone says "The problem with BG3 is that its based on DnD. Please remove DnD from this licensed DnD franchise game." Its not even worth talking about. Its not going to happen because WotC was shopping BG3 around specifically to find a developer to make a 5e game and they handpicked Larian to do so. 5e isn't going anywhere.


Seconded... and I'd hazard a guess that 1 million full price, EARLY ACCESS copies sold in the first week are quite a testament to how big of a pull the promise of a true Baldur's Gate sequel - and not BG3 Divinity Edition - actually generated among fans, old and new.

Last edited by WarBaby2; 13/10/20 08:07 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Milkfred


3. Players Want to Experience Everything

A solution to the Nettie thing is to just not talk to her. But players generally want to experience all the content they can in a single playthrough. Having a consequence be 'you just don't get to do something' is related to my first point. I'd put a few other things under this umbrella - like Perception checks as you're exploring - as being similarly annoying. What did I miss? Who knows, but now I have this feeling in the back of my head that I'm missing out on something. Was it something that I'd think was cool? A neat bit of lore? Something to make Lae'zel like me? I can tell myself that it was probably just two gold pieces and a fork, but my brain will insist otherwise.


Originally Posted by Sylvius the Mad

Those players are playing it wrong. They're trying to play a game.

RPGs aren't games. They're toys. RPGs don't have winning conditions. Playing an RPG successfully involves making in-character decisions and... that's it. Whether the character succeeds or fails isn't relevant to whether the player succeeds or fails.


I had to quote this exchange, because I think that Sylvius' point is exactly WHY I play RPGs (tabletop or online). To play.

I remember a gazillion years ago trying to explain the DnD blue box set to my mother and her question was "how do you know who wins?".

It's like jazz or cats - if you get it, no explanation is needed.

If you don't, no explanation will suffice.

Last edited by Newtinmpls; 13/10/20 08:17 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
+1,
From what the OP is stating it seems that some members of this community do not want the 5e ruleset driving the game. That is fine, DOS3 will be coming at some point and we all can appreciate two distinct titles from the studio. I personally enjoy the rng shenanigans that tabletop rulesets lead too. So your a badass wizard who fails an arcana check, how does that effect the scene your in? Roleplay through the upsets, its more similar to real life. Now I do agree that it would be nice if there were more scene options or chains to follow? Absolutely. I think Crusher's conversation is a great example of what Larian is aiming for in terms of multiple outcomes based on player agency. Are they going to nail it with every single interaction? Probably not. But I appreciate the attempts and the surprises along the way.

Page 9 of 11 1 2 7 8 9 10 11

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