Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10
Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by etonbears
Originally Posted by Dexai
Beamdog are only allowed that leeway because they're working on a rerelease of an old game. It's not something they would be allowed to do if they were making a new one.

SoD was a new game, not a remaster. They have also created a new premium module for NWN. I am no more privvy to their commercial agreements than you are, but if WotC hated the idea, I would expect more public friction.

I think players often project their own assumptions on WotC that are not necessarily true ( unless you have some solid evidence to suggest they only want 5e products, of course ). WotC make money from all DnD properties, and they get publicity from all DnD properties; why would they not want that ?

SoD was developed as DLC for the old game. The NwN module is DLC. That's not the same as a new game.

Beamdog has literally said themselves that using 2nd ed for new products is off the table. WotC doesn't want it, they want to promote their current line of dnd.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Apr 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Apr 2020
Originally Posted by etonbears
Originally Posted by Dexai
Beamdog are only allowed that leeway because they're working on a rerelease of an old game. It's not something they would be allowed to do if they were making a new one.

SoD was a new game, not a remaster. They have also created a new premium module for NWN. I am no more privvy to their commercial agreements than you are, but if WotC hated the idea, I would expect more public friction.

SoD was an expansion, not a stand alone game. It simply used the same AD&D rules as the game that came before and after in the same saga. For NWN, my guess is that it is a new module of an existing engine\ruleset. I also don't think they would be allowed to use 5E if they made a brand new game from the ground up.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
enthusiast
Online Content
enthusiast
D
Joined: Oct 2020
I do think that Larrian would be better off making the game faithful to 5E. However, I will be satisfied with a DoS/5E hybrid provided they implement enough features and moding hooks to allow grognards to fix HP bloat, AC, and barrels with mods as they desire.

Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Imagine if WotC gave this to Larian, whose basic opinion seems to be that many of them think that playing 5e D&D is not fun, full in the knowledge that they would completely butcher their implementation of the ruleset, because they knew the studio's history of functionally an entirely different but similar genre of game (and subsequent fan base), along with the hype legacy of Baldur's Gate would be guaranteed to bring in both large crowds of existing D&D fans, and a large audience of people from other styles who stand the chance of becoming interested in D&D as a result - and they knew that in doing this, the largest, loudest volume of player outcry would be those familiar with D&D telling all of the others that the game would be so much better and more engaging and more fun if they'd only tried to create a more faithful interpretation of the 5e ruleset... Because then at least a significant portion of that untapped legion who don't already play D&D and buy their books, would be more likely to be tempted to do so, in response to being presented with a shoddy example that was kinda fun but also meh, and being told that the actual game system is much better, by so many people.

Just a morning before-I've had-tea thought...

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
Imagine if WotC gave this to Larian, whose basic opinion seems to be that many of them think that playing 5e D&D is not fun, full in the knowledge that they would completely butcher their implementation of the ruleset, because they knew the studio's history of functionally an entirely different but similar genre of game (and subsequent fan base), along with the hype legacy of Baldur's Gate would be guaranteed to bring in both large crowds of existing D&D fans, and a large audience of people from other styles who stand the chance of becoming interested in D&D as a result - and they knew that in doing this, the largest, loudest volume of player outcry would be those familiar with D&D telling all of the others that the game would be so much better and more engaging and more fun if they'd only tried to create a more faithful interpretation of the 5e ruleset... Because then at least a significant portion of that untapped legion who don't already play D&D and buy their books, would be more likely to be tempted to do so, in response to being presented with a shoddy example that was kinda fun but also meh, and being told that the actual game system is much better, by so many people.

Just a morning before-I've had-tea thought...

Now we’re getting the big brain theories. Either way WotC wins – on one hand they get a faithful 5E simulator that can be built upon for other adventures, DM mode, VTT, etc – or on the other hand they get a shoddy product that drives consumers to their superior tabletop game. I think you’ve nailed it.

Joined: Nov 2020
Banned
Offline
Banned
Joined: Nov 2020
I think Larian doesn't care too much about tabletop rules because most people don't care about it. Show me 10 people who want a 5d thing in there and i'll show you 100 who want more hair options kinda thing. And both of those groups probably aren't even the majority of players.

But then again i believe quite strongly their market is Dragon Age's audience and not DND/old-school BG fans (would explain why the game has more mechanics in common with Origins than BG), so as long as they don't provide worse gameplay than Inquisition it's likely most aren't even gonna know it wasn't faithful/could have been better.

Last edited by Innateagle; 09/02/21 05:06 AM.
Joined: Jan 2021
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by Innateagle
I think Larian doesn't care too much about tabletop rules because most people don't care about it. Show me 10 people who want a 5d thing in there and i'll show you 100 who want more hair options kinda thing. And both of those groups probably aren't even the majority of players.

But then again i believe quite strongly their market is Dragon Age's audience and not DND/old-school BG fans (would explain why the game has more mechanics in common with Origins than BG), so as long as they don't provide worse gameplay than Inquisition it's likely most aren't even gonna know it wasn't faithful/could have been better.

This is probably it.

More people care about their virtual dress up doll getting laid, than if the gameplay is good.

My only hope at this point, is that modders can salvage this title.

I'll be playing Kingmaker, or IWD, or BG2, or working on my own setting.

What a disappointment this is EA has been.

Joined: Oct 2020
D
member
Offline
member
D
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Innateagle
I think Larian doesn't care too much about tabletop rules because most people don't care about it. Show me 10 people who want a 5d thing in there and i'll show you 100 who want more hair options kinda thing. And both of those groups probably aren't even the majority of players.

But then again i believe quite strongly their market is Dragon Age's audience and not DND/old-school BG fans (would explain why the game has more mechanics in common with Origins than BG), so as long as they don't provide worse gameplay than Inquisition it's likely most aren't even gonna know it wasn't faithful/could have been better.
Agreed. frown Let's at least hope that there's still more people that want a good RPG (regardless of how much faithful to 5e it is) than there's waifu-seekers that want a dating sim.

I also believe that besides some people that want a faithful 5e implementation just for the sake of the game being FR/D&D/BG3, there are (or WILL be) many people like me who realize that after 20+ hours of playing, the combat just really blows and that making it more like 5e and less than DOS might be one feasible way to improve it.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by DiDiDi
[quote=Innateagle]

I also believe that besides some people that want a faithful 5e implementation just for the sake of the game being FR/D&D/BG3, there are (or WILL be) many people like me who realize that after 20+ hours of playing, the combat just really blows and that making it more like 5e and less than DOS might be one feasible way to improve it.

Larian actually built some really slick systems in DOS – all the buffing/debuffing, countering elements etc. Hugely strategic and perfect for a turn-based game. Unfortunately D&D is a lot more convoluted, I can see why it would take them some time to transition across. Heck, D&D Beyond only just added advantage/disadvantage on skills after several years and they’re only building a character sheet. There are a LOT of systems that need to interplay correctly and many, many exceptions and edge cases. I’m going to remain optimistic that they just need more time.

Joined: Jan 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2020
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by etonbears
Originally Posted by Dexai
Beamdog are only allowed that leeway because they're working on a rerelease of an old game. It's not something they would be allowed to do if they were making a new one.

SoD was a new game, not a remaster. They have also created a new premium module for NWN. I am no more privvy to their commercial agreements than you are, but if WotC hated the idea, I would expect more public friction.

I think players often project their own assumptions on WotC that are not necessarily true ( unless you have some solid evidence to suggest they only want 5e products, of course ). WotC make money from all DnD properties, and they get publicity from all DnD properties; why would they not want that ?

SoD was developed as DLC for the old game. The NwN module is DLC. That's not the same as a new game.

Beamdog has literally said themselves that using 2nd ed for new products is off the table. WotC doesn't want it, they want to promote their current line of dnd.

I have no clue what the licencing deals are, because they are commercially confidential. However, the fact remains that new content has appeared for old rules systems, and WotC have not created friction.

Similarly, since the 5e TT rules were introduced, I have seen 4 new videogames using DnD/FR branding that don't use ANY of the DnD rulesets, never mind 5e.

Even the videogame that WotC themselves released uses poker-dice mechanics rather than DnD rules. It seems to me that they are most focussed on ensuring that the current FR Story/World State/Characters that accompany their 5e games is used consistently, rather than making everything use the 5e ruleset.

WotC have said themselves that they want people to consume the DnD/FR brand in whatever way appeals to them, and have made it available in many forms other than just the TT rules.

Solasta seems most clearly a videogame product designed to appeal to TT players, whereas the "Larian-style" DnD seems less clearly liked by TT players.

But maybe TT players are not even the audience WotC want to reach with BG3? Maybe it's the several million that played BG1/2? Maybe it's the nearly 20 Million that have played ( or still play ) Neverwinter with it's modified 4e ruleset? Or the tens of Millions that choose games based on recommendations from the videogames media, who are less likely to be effusive with a strict 5e interpretation?

Or maybe "Dungeons and Dragons:Dice Adventures" is the shape of things to come? Perhaps it's foreshadowing the release of an all-new 6e Ultra-streamline edition DnD based on poker-dice ( just $49.99 fo a full set!). wink

Joined: Jan 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
Imagine if WotC gave this to Larian, whose basic opinion seems to be that many of them think that playing 5e D&D is not fun, full in the knowledge that they would completely butcher their implementation of the ruleset, because they knew the studio's history of functionally an entirely different but similar genre of game (and subsequent fan base), along with the hype legacy of Baldur's Gate would be guaranteed to bring in both large crowds of existing D&D fans, and a large audience of people from other styles who stand the chance of becoming interested in D&D as a result - and they knew that in doing this, the largest, loudest volume of player outcry would be those familiar with D&D telling all of the others that the game would be so much better and more engaging and more fun if they'd only tried to create a more faithful interpretation of the 5e ruleset... Because then at least a significant portion of that untapped legion who don't already play D&D and buy their books, would be more likely to be tempted to do so, in response to being presented with a shoddy example that was kinda fun but also meh, and being told that the actual game system is much better, by so many people.

Just a morning before-I've had-tea thought...

Yep, that's something along the lines of the way WotC seem to have been operating in the last decade.

Like any other company, they want to find ways to drive product sales, and crowd-sourcing their marketing is certainly part of it. They seem more inclusive and less hardcore in their views than some of their players!

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
OP Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by etonbears
[quote=Niara]
Like any other company, they want to find ways to drive product sales, and crowd-sourcing their marketing is certainly part of it. They seem more inclusive and less hardcore in their views than some of their players!

I’m sure the likes of Jeremy Crawford would love to see a faithful adaptation... but the higher ups at Hasbro are probably like, meh?

Mike Mearls appeared to be the one who kicked off BG3 with Larian, he was fairly rules-focused. That’s all history now though.

Joined: Jan 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2020
Originally Posted by LukasPrism
Originally Posted by DiDiDi
[quote=Innateagle]

I also believe that besides some people that want a faithful 5e implementation just for the sake of the game being FR/D&D/BG3, there are (or WILL be) many people like me who realize that after 20+ hours of playing, the combat just really blows and that making it more like 5e and less than DOS might be one feasible way to improve it.

Larian actually built some really slick systems in DOS – all the buffing/debuffing, countering elements etc. Hugely strategic and perfect for a turn-based game. Unfortunately D&D is a lot more convoluted, I can see why it would take them some time to transition across. Heck, D&D Beyond only just added advantage/disadvantage on skills after several years and they’re only building a character sheet. There are a LOT of systems that need to interplay correctly and many, many exceptions and edge cases. I’m going to remain optimistic that they just need more time.

I wouldn't bet on it! Swen described their dev process as building general systems for content, then putting them together to see what players can do with them. That sort of approach can lead to many edge and corner cases with a ruleset like DnD which is not designed in the same systematic manner.

Personally I'm OK with the current implementation except for auto-reactions, which needs some thought.

I would also like to see what would happen if the ADV/DISADV system was modified so a single source did not negate ALL opposing sources. I don't mean double or triple advantage that some 5e players apparently use, but it seems that e.g. 4 x ADV against 1 x DISADV should still result in an ADV role.

Might make some of the Larian-added sources of ADV/DISADV less irksome?

Might also get me roasted by super-irate hardcore 5e players wink

Joined: Jan 2021
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Jan 2021
Originally Posted by etonbears
Personally I'm OK with the current implementation except for auto-reactions, which needs some thought.

I would also like to see what would happen if the ADV/DISADV system was modified so a single source did not negate ALL opposing sources. I don't mean double or triple advantage that some 5e players apparently use, but it seems that e.g. 4 x ADV against 1 x DISADV should still result in an ADV role.

Might make some of the Larian-added sources of ADV/DISADV less irksome?

Might also get me roasted by super-irate hardcore 5e players wink
I think most forum visitors are in agreement reactions can be improved.

The issue is more that advantage and disadvantage being everywhere undermines spells and abilities, that's why it's irksome. It's too easy to get advantage and you end up repeating these new best strategies over and over again. There is no incentive to deviate strategy.

Last edited by DragonSnooz; 09/02/21 11:40 PM.
Joined: Sep 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Sep 2020
Originally Posted by booboo
Yep, I think if they'd stated in the EA that BG3 was only loosely connected to 5E rules, people would be less bothered. I played all the content, and initially enjoyed it, but was increasingly put off by the many things that are patently not 5E and overpowered/game-balance breaking. And clearly inserted because they were 'cool'.
It would have been preferable if they had made that more clear. I remember reading something that said they wanted to be as close as possible to 5e, so the differences stood out to me as being wrong or needing to be fixed. There are definitely things I would prefer to be closer to 5e and some that need fixing, but I also understand that some things need a bit of modification to fit into a video game.

Originally Posted by Niara
Imagine if WotC gave this to Larian, whose basic opinion seems to be that many of them think that playing 5e D&D is not fun, full in the knowledge that they would completely butcher their implementation of the ruleset, because they knew the studio's history of functionally an entirely different but similar genre of game (and subsequent fan base), along with the hype legacy of Baldur's Gate would be guaranteed to bring in both large crowds of existing D&D fans, and a large audience of people from other styles who stand the chance of becoming interested in D&D as a result - and they knew that in doing this, the largest, loudest volume of player outcry would be those familiar with D&D telling all of the others that the game would be so much better and more engaging and more fun if they'd only tried to create a more faithful interpretation of the 5e ruleset... Because then at least a significant portion of that untapped legion who don't already play D&D and buy their books, would be more likely to be tempted to do so, in response to being presented with a shoddy example that was kinda fun but also meh, and being told that the actual game system is much better, by so many people.

Just a morning before-I've had-tea thought...
This would make sense. laugh

Originally Posted by Scribe
More people care about their virtual dress up doll getting laid, than if the gameplay is good.
The scary thing is that you are probably right. frown Would rather they leave the detailed parts of this crap to modders and work on actual gameplay.

Originally Posted by DiDiDi
Let's at least hope that there's still more people that want a good RPG (regardless of how much faithful to 5e it is) than there's waifu-seekers that want a dating sim.
Might want to hope that those of us that want real gameplay are the ones to be heard. For those that want the dating sim crap, it is already in game and not being taken away from you, so let the rest of us have actual gameplay. It is already bad enough that we have that stuff shoved down our throats at character creation with the "who do you dream of", which apparently means "who do you want to fuck", not who you may actually dream of.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by etonbears
Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by etonbears
Originally Posted by Dexai
Beamdog are only allowed that leeway because they're working on a rerelease of an old game. It's not something they would be allowed to do if they were making a new one.

SoD was a new game, not a remaster. They have also created a new premium module for NWN. I am no more privvy to their commercial agreements than you are, but if WotC hated the idea, I would expect more public friction.

I think players often project their own assumptions on WotC that are not necessarily true ( unless you have some solid evidence to suggest they only want 5e products, of course ). WotC make money from all DnD properties, and they get publicity from all DnD properties; why would they not want that ?

SoD was developed as DLC for the old game. The NwN module is DLC. That's not the same as a new game.

Beamdog has literally said themselves that using 2nd ed for new products is off the table. WotC doesn't want it, they want to promote their current line of dnd.

I have no clue what the licencing deals are, because they are commercially confidential. However, the fact remains that new content has appeared for old rules systems, and WotC have not created friction.

Similarly, since the 5e TT rules were introduced, I have seen 4 new videogames using DnD/FR branding that don't use ANY of the DnD rulesets, never mind 5e.

Even the videogame that WotC themselves released uses poker-dice mechanics rather than DnD rules. It seems to me that they are most focussed on ensuring that the current FR Story/World State/Characters that accompany their 5e games is used consistently, rather than making everything use the 5e ruleset.

WotC have said themselves that they want people to consume the DnD/FR brand in whatever way appeals to them, and have made it available in many forms other than just the TT rules.

Solasta seems most clearly a videogame product designed to appeal to TT players, whereas the "Larian-style" DnD seems less clearly liked by TT players.

But maybe TT players are not even the audience WotC want to reach with BG3? Maybe it's the several million that played BG1/2? Maybe it's the nearly 20 Million that have played ( or still play ) Neverwinter with it's modified 4e ruleset? Or the tens of Millions that choose games based on recommendations from the videogames media, who are less likely to be effusive with a strict 5e interpretation?

Or maybe "Dungeons and Dragons:Dice Adventures" is the shape of things to come? Perhaps it's foreshadowing the release of an all-new 6e Ultra-streamline edition DnD based on poker-dice ( just $49.99 fo a full set!). wink

Phillip Daigle probably has a pretty good idea how WotC feel about it.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Nov 2015
member
Offline
member
Joined: Nov 2015
I personally would rather Larian focus on making a fun game, not a DnD simulator. I also like the party of four. While some groups are more vocal than others, I think that the forums make it clear that the notion of there being a consensus is illusory and/or wishful thinking.

Joined: Apr 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Apr 2020
Originally Posted by Imryll
I personally would rather Larian focus on making a fun game, not a DnD simulator.

Good news, we know that both are possible, thanks to Solasta.

Joined: Oct 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Imryll
I personally would rather Larian focus on making a fun game, not a DnD simulator.

Unfortunately for that false dichotomy the main way of making BG3 more fun is to make it more true to 5e.


Optimistically Apocalyptic
Joined: Jan 2021
S
addict
Offline
addict
S
Joined: Jan 2021
The argument that 'BG 3 doesnt need to be 5e rules' is nonsense. Its saying 'we cannot use 5e rules as the game will reach less people' but that is neither provable, nor remotely likely at all.

You want to reach people who are interested in Baldurs Gate? Well other than a cheap name drop (check) they could implement the rules that are current. 5e.
You want to reach people who are into D&D now? 5e.
You want to reach people who are into turn based games with depth? Solasta proves what? 5e.
You want to reach people who play video games? Well...they dont care, they play whatever, so no harm in guess what? 5e.

Honestly unless the next update says 'we hear you, we will fix things and get closer to 5e' then its just an admission of lack of effort. They never tried. Its not like they built the game into 5e and cut back. No, they built on top of the engine and rules they are already used to.

Its PAINFUL levels of obvious.

Either implement the rules set appropriately, or make sure mod creators can do the job for you after the fact.

Page 5 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10

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