Larian Banner: Baldur's Gate Patch 9
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Er, I don't know about you guys but I consider that yes, this scenario:

"Here is a source of information, suitably weakened to the point that you might have an edge to deal with it!"

- You get the full reward if you skip the content and kill it using base game mechanics outside of any interaction
- If you do engage and interact, you have to make at least one save... and if you fail that save, you get a Game Over (most likely)!

Yes, indeed, that IS bad game design. It's terrible game design. It's inviting players to engage with your content, rewarding them for not doing so, and brutally punishing them for trying to with a complete reset - so that they must either skip the content, and get the reward externally, or they must save scum and reload UNTIL they pass the game-over save and can continue.

That's Bad Design.

Joined: Mar 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by Niara
Er, I don't know about you guys but I consider that yes, this scenario:

"Here is a source of information, suitably weakened to the point that you might have an edge to deal with it!"

- You get the full reward if you skip the content and kill it using base game mechanics outside of any interaction
- If you do engage and interact, you have to make at least one save... and if you fail that save, you get a Game Over (most likely)!

Yes, indeed, that IS bad game design. It's terrible game design. It's inviting players to engage with your content, rewarding them for not doing so, and brutally punishing them for trying to with a complete reset - so that they must either skip the content, and get the reward externally, or they must save scum and reload UNTIL they pass the game-over save and can continue.

That's Bad Design.

In some cases I would agree with you, and there are obvious cases where using barrelmancy which you aptly demonstrated, can allow you to simply bypass all encounters and conflict.

In this isolated case it simply subverts expected RPG behavior (TALK TO ALL THE THINGS) by placing you into a fraught situation if you do so. The game in this case warns you about the encounter you are facing, and you have an interaction with the Illithid Thralls first who demonstrate that they are mind-controlled due to their interaction.

However you resolve things with the thralls you now have the option of engaging directly with an entity that has demonstrated the ability to use manipulation and powerful psionic mind-control abilities to cause harm OR you can smash it's brains open with a rock/sword/whatever.

The Illithid obviously wants you to engage directly. So given the way this is set up and the nuance around it I would reject that this qualifies as bad design.

AS a DM I would love to give players this scenario to deal with, and I think it works much better that way since the Illithid can only engage with one person at a time using its mind-control ability. It gives the other players a chance to notice what is happening and then they can take action if they see their companion getting taken over.

Last edited by Blackheifer; 05/07/21 03:45 AM.

Blackheifer
Joined: Jun 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jun 2021
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
The most funny was the one with Illithid who eated his brain ...
The man literally complained a few paragraphs back about how much he didn't like the game pitting us against such powerful creatures as Illithids from the start ... and he wouldn't forget to point out that the average illithid would smudge our gang like a fly.
And then he meets one in the wreckage of a ship, and his only thought is: Hey, let's talk to him! laugh That was pure gold. laugh laugh laugh

He also complained how difficult it is to persuade the fishermen and that he was forced to kill them. You can actually kill the illithid during combat and the fight stops then.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Alyssa_Fox
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
The most funny was the one with Illithid who eated his brain ...
The man literally complained a few paragraphs back about how much he didn't like the game pitting us against such powerful creatures as Illithids from the start ... and he wouldn't forget to point out that the average illithid would smudge our gang like a fly.
And then he meets one in the wreckage of a ship, and his only thought is: Hey, let's talk to him! laugh That was pure gold. laugh laugh laugh

He also complained how difficult it is to persuade the fishermen and that he was forced to kill them. You can actually kill the illithid during combat and the fight stops then.
Yup ...
Or he can simply knock them off, instead of killing them. smile


If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
Location: Belgium
That's something you know because you habe played the game multiple times.
The first time I (and I guess many others) just killed the fisherman. Which is not really a problem.

Last edited by Maximuuus; 05/07/21 05:53 AM.

French Speaking Youtube Channel with a lot of BG3 videos : https://www.youtube.com/c/maximuuus
Joined: Jun 2020
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
Again, I say: It's showing you content, then actively punishing you with a "reset and reload until you succeed" dead end if you choose to actually pursue it, while giving you full rewards for ignoring the content and killing it without engaging. The "Best" solution is to ENTIRELY skip, ALL the content placed here, and to walk up to the Illithid and Ctrl-click it (external to situation game mechanic), without ever even talking to the fishers. This yields the best and most optimum outcome, with zero risk of punishment or failure. Defend it how you like: it's objectively a failure of design. Context is literally irrelevant in the face of these facts.

In talking about how you'd love to do it as a DM you're also highlighting an additional design failure - Everyone else just stands there and watches you feed your head to the Illithid and does absolutely nothing, and there are no options or prompts for them to do anything, in any way.

They give you this situation - an entity that knows literally everything about your situation, why you're in it, and what's been done to you - and given him to you in a severely weakened, crippled and dying state. Yes, they've illustrated that he's dangerous - that doesn't change the fact that what is being presented is an opportunity that a reasonable player could expect to turn to their advantage in some small way. Except, you can't, and you're punished for trying at all, and rewarded for not doing so.

Here's what would stop it from being a failed design:

- If the checks involved were not multi-tiered all-failstate checks. That's garbage design to begin with.
- If succeeding in your efforts won you something of value (information that could lead to further dialogues, perhaps, or something nearby that the Illithid had hoped to find in the wreckage that would have helped him and can now help you, maybe).
- If failing in your efforts put your party into combat. The failing player is stunned/charmed, the others can roll initiative and react, The player, on their turn, will 'help' the Illithid, who stands, and the Illithid, once helped and on his own turn will use devour brain on the victim character (auto success at that point). The party have until that happens to either remove the player from the scene or break the effect, or stop the ilithid, and it's only if they don't do one of these things that he grains his full health, kills the player and wipes the party.

Now you have a situation that promises a reward for risk, delivers something of value if it is chanced and succeeded at, leads to danger and consequence for failure, and actively engages the players to win over the situation by their own choices. It can lead to a party wipe on extreme failure or poor choice making, but still allows the players to experience the content, even on partial failure, and come out alive, albeit without the value they had hoped to gain from the risk.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
That's something you know because you habe played the game multiple times.
That was the point ...
Why people should not write rewiev after single gameplay. :-/


If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Joined: Jun 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jun 2021
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
That's something you know because you habe played the game multiple times.
The first time I (and I guess many others) just killed the fisherman. Which is not really a problem.
I did it on my first playthrough. I mean it's sorta obvious, you have a fight with puppets and puppet master, every time I get that kind of fight in an RPG I focus puppet master first.

Joined: Mar 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2021
Originally Posted by Niara
Again, I say: It's showing you content, then actively punishing you with a "reset and reload until you succeed" dead end if you choose to actually pursue it, while giving you full rewards for ignoring the content and killing it without engaging. The "Best" solution is to ENTIRELY skip, ALL the content placed here, and to walk up to the Illithid and Ctrl-click it (external to situation game mechanic), without ever even talking to the fishers. This yields the best and most optimum outcome, with zero risk of punishment or failure. Defend it how you like: it's objectively a failure of design. Context is literally irrelevant in the face of these facts.

The narration and activity draws you to this situation. Specifically to the fisherman digging the Illithid out - and you interact with them first. You are welcome to ignore it, interact with it or just attack everyone. Its an RPG.

In a way I see this initial encounter as a way of training the player to think carefully about the scenarios presented. This isn't Diablo. There are real dangers and it's important to not take things for granted.

Originally Posted by Niara
In talking about how you'd love to do it as a DM you're also highlighting an additional design failure - Everyone else just stands there and watches you feed your head to the Illithid and does absolutely nothing, and there are no options or prompts for them to do anything, in any way.

You do know you can switch to another character in your party and then smash the Illithids head in right? And you can do it during a conversation. In a sense you are complaining that you didn't do anything to intercede. You should have a word with yourself about that when you get a moment. ;D

In multiplayer I have had other players roll up to me when I was talking to the Mindflayer and kill it - "Why you talkin' to that? You knows its an A-hole!" -Actual Quote

Originally Posted by Niara
They give you this situation - an entity that knows literally everything about your situation, why you're in it, and what's been done to you - and given him to you in a severely weakened, crippled and dying state. Yes, they've illustrated that he's dangerous - that doesn't change the fact that what is being presented is an opportunity that a reasonable player could expect to turn to their advantage in some small way. Except, you can't, and you're punished for trying at all, and rewarded for not doing so.

I can't speak to this as you are the person that defines what a 'punishment' and a 'reward' happens to be. I do not see it this way. Sure maybe it knows something. Maybe it's the Illithid Janitor and it doesn't. You know its dangerous and you may gain nothing from interacting with it. You can survive talking to it but you gain no insight. Its just an opportunity. Is it a bit of a tease? Sure, but that's actually a valid way to challenge players.



Originally Posted by Niara
Here's what would stop it from being a failed design:

- If the checks involved were not multi-tiered all-failstate checks. That's garbage design to begin with.

I don't know what this means, can you clarify and provide examples?

Originally Posted by Niara
- If succeeding in your efforts won you something of value (information that could lead to further dialogues, perhaps, or something nearby that the Illithid had hoped to find in the wreckage that would have helped him and can now help you, maybe).

So the encounter does not have value because you didn't gain any information from it? Isn't a direct demonstration of the insidious nature of Mindflayers and how they operate useful and valuable? I think to a new player especially this is a good lesson.

Originally Posted by Niara
- If failing in your efforts put your party into combat. The failing player is stunned/charmed, the others can roll initiative and react, The player, on their turn, will 'help' the Illithid, who stands, and the Illithid, once helped and on his own turn will use devour brain on the victim character (auto success at that point). The party have until that happens to either remove the player from the scene or break the effect, or stop the ilithid, and it's only if they don't do one of these things that he grains his full health, kills the player and wipes the party.

Yeah, sure, that's another way it could be handled. You are welcome to mod that in. I think its fine the way it is. I don't think that's proof of bad design by any means in the current encounter.

Originally Posted by Niara
Now you have a situation that promises a reward for risk, delivers something of value if it is chanced and succeeded at, leads to danger and consequence for failure, and actively engages the players to win over the situation by their own choices. It can lead to a party wipe on extreme failure or poor choice making, but still allows the players to experience the content, even on partial failure, and come out alive, albeit without the value they had hoped to gain from the risk.

Obviously this encounter really disappoints you. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I don't agree on your assessment and think its a worthwhile encounter that accomplishes clear objectives and allows for multiple paths of resolution. Maybe it will get re-worked in the final version though. *shrug*


Blackheifer
Joined: Aug 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
Originally Posted by Niara
In talking about how you'd love to do it as a DM you're also highlighting an additional design failure - Everyone else just stands there and watches you feed your head to the Illithid and does absolutely nothing, and there are no options or prompts for them to do anything, in any way.

You do know you can switch to another character in your party and then smash the Illithids head in right? And you can do it during a conversation. In a sense you are complaining that you didn't do anything to intercede. You should have a word with yourself about that when you get a moment. ;D

In multiplayer I have had other players roll up to me when I was talking to the Mindflayer and kill it - "Why you talkin' to that? You knows its an A-hole!" -Actual Quote

I don't know how I feel about the entire encounter on principle and you both make pretty good arguments, though I think I lean a bit more towards Niara's side, especially regarding the requirement of multiple checks. But I will also point out that "you can control your companions even during conversations" is not an excuse here. Firstly, the game never really tells you that you can do that, and it is such an unusual game mechanic in crpgs that I wouldn't be surprised if most players don't figure it out until long after that encounter, I certainly didn't. Furthermore, your companions are still characters that should have some degree of reaction to what you as the player are doing. You shouldn't expect them to just stand around and watch you feed yourself to the mindflayer. They should have some sort of reaction because they are right there.

Joined: Oct 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Absalom
Originally Posted by Bufotenina
Said that I hope that with this patch they start to unlock new areas being one who gets easily annoyed and bored I stopped playing after the third patch because I know all the dialogues, all the routes, all the quests.

That would be my wish as well. I hear many asking for Level 5 but that is of little use. How many encounters are you going to have at that tier? 3? 4? Give me new areas to explore even if I'm a bit underpowered for the fights, I'll figure a way to win even if it means being cheesy with barrels.
The last area seems fine for lvl 5, both with the monsters we fight and the amount of exp we can get prior.

The most important thing about implementing lvl 5, however, is that it is the first major powerbump for characters. Almost every class increase their combat abilities drastically. So if Larian wants to use player data to balance encounters, seeing what we are capable of at lvl 5 is probably a good idea.

If you do most content above ground, one should reliably be at or close to lvl 5 for the final area of te EA. So if they balance it around everyone being lvl 4, it will likely end up being on the easy side when the game releases.

There is also the fun factor. 3rd lvl spells and multiattack are fun to play with.



I'd also like to see Rogues treated better. Give it back their Expertise and change Sneak Attack to be automatic or a toggle, instead of it being a declared attack. And please add Booming and Greenfire Blade.


Don't you just hate it when people with dumb opinions have nice avatars?
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Niara
The "Best" solution is to ENTIRELY skip, ALL the content placed here, and to walk up to the Illithid and Ctrl-click it (external to situation game mechanic), without ever even talking to the fishers.
"Best" is relative therm here ...
You dont get any additional reward, except for inspiration point ... wich you get for killing the illithid, no matter when, or how you do it ... not for skiping the conversation.
If you would say faster, i would agree ... but best?

What is better about this compared to scenario, where you talk to them and find out what is happening .. and THEN you kill the illithid? O_o
In your "best" solution, you missed small part of content ...

What is better about this compared to scenario, where you kill those fishermans, bcs you acutaly dont care about them at all .. and THEN once again you kill the illithid (still no matter if you do that imediatly, or sucess your throws) ?
In your "best" solution, you missed content, small bunch of XP and some loot ...
(of you can knock them out ... if you are willing to sacrifice those XP, but still want loot)

So i simply have to ask:
What makes it so "best" anyway? O_o

Originally Posted by Niara
Defend it how you like: it's objectively a failure of design. Context is literally irrelevant in the face of these facts.
What facts? laugh
All i see is you stating "its best" that is not facts, that is simple stating opinion ... not even very vell. :-/

Design is ment to teach you that this adventure is not all fun and games, sun and rainbows, smiles and laugh ... and you should THINK before you DO ...
In my opinion, its working perfectly ... even tho lesson might seem a little too harsh to some.

Originally Posted by Niara
In talking about how you'd love to do it as a DM you're also highlighting an additional design failure - Everyone else just stands there and watches you feed your head to the Illithid and does absolutely nothing, and there are no options or prompts for them to do anything, in any way.
Wrong ...
There are options, you just need to search them actively ... instead of simply expect the game to guide you step by step ... this is not tutorial anymore. O_o

(i shall instert video here, when it will be uploaded ... youtube is somehow stubborn today. -_-)
//edit: Finaly laugh


The problem here is that your companions are not independent entities anymore ...
YOU are in control ... that means, if you want THEM to do something, YOU must be the one who will do it. laugh

But as you can see, options are right there. wink
BTW the same approach works for Astarion aswell ... i only hope that there will be some restrain, wake up and question ... options for kocked out enemies.
Otherwise i would have to kill him almost every single time. smile

Originally Posted by Niara
They give you this situation - an entity that knows literally everything about your situation, why you're in it, and what's been done to you - and given him to you in a severely weakened, crippled and dying state. Yes, they've illustrated that he's dangerous - that doesn't change the fact that what is being presented is an opportunity that a reasonable player could expect to turn to their advantage in some small way. Except, you can't, and you're punished for trying at all, and rewarded for not doing so.
An entity that knows litteraly everything about your situation ... yes ...

Yet the entity, that have litteraly zero reason to anyhow help you ...
Yet the entity, that while you were fighting those 3 people it allready controlled, tryed to control you aswell ...
Yet the entity, that bcs of your fight, just lost 3 other people it was controlling ... and therefore logicaly can focus on controling you much more ...
And finaly, yet the entity, that game multiple times (once in this very conversation ... right before you made your choice to either break free, or risk your chances) warns you that it wants only use you, and eat you. laugh

That is the point ...
Situation SHOULD look, as something you could expect to tunr to your advantage ...
Im surprised you expect it to look differently ... do you oftem place neon sign "WARNING! There is trap right here!" abowe your traps? laugh

Originally Posted by Niara
- If the checks involved were not multi-tiered all-failstate checks. That's garbage design to begin with.
I dont even understand this sentence ...

Originally Posted by Niara
- If succeeding in your efforts won you something of value (information that could lead to further dialogues, perhaps, or something nearby that the Illithid had hoped to find in the wreckage that would have helped him and can now help you, maybe).
You failed for a trap, and yet want reward?
That is what i would call garbage design. laugh

The illithid didnt hope to find anything ... maybe except those fishermans (aka anyone who would set him free, and possibly prowide snack after). laugh
He was simply inside, when ship crushed. O_o
And he was pinned down, since some parts have fall on him.

Originally Posted by Niara
- If failing in your efforts put your party into combat. The failing player is stunned/charmed, the others can roll initiative and react, The player, on their turn, will 'help' the Illithid, who stands, and the Illithid, once helped and on his own turn will use devour brain on the victim character (auto success at that point). The party have until that happens to either remove the player from the scene or break the effect, or stop the ilithid, and it's only if they don't do one of these things that he grains his full health, kills the player and wipes the party.
As you can see in that video i recorded for you ... you can do all that, if you choose to. O_o
I HONESTLY wonder why (rethorical question, ofcourse) that review autor choosed to click on certain death option instead ... and then was mad about that his character ended up dead. laugh laugh laugh

I wonder if there is any mind control breaking spell (simmilar to protect from good and evil) ...
So we can actualy save fishermans.
But since it didnt have any effect, when i used that spell (protection from good and evil) on mask-wearing thralls of Hag, im not even sure if that would work. frown
(btw using that spell DO protect PC againts magic in that mask ... that is why i expected it to work the same for NPCs)

Originally Posted by Niara
Now you have a situation that promises a reward for risk, delivers something of value if it is chanced and succeeded at, leads to danger and consequence for failure, and actively engages the players to win over the situation by their own choices. It can lead to a party wipe on extreme failure or poor choice making, but still allows the players to experience the content, even on partial failure, and come out alive, albeit without the value they had hoped to gain from the risk.
Well, Swen specificly told us to "thrust the dices, even if you loose" ... in one of last interviews before whole EA even started ...
I gues he decided to give us harsh lesson. smile

All you want to add there is failsafe, in the case that everything will goes completely wrong ...
But that would compeltely destroy the whole point. :-/

Right now it is: You made your choose, and you choosed badly ... now suffer the consequences.

In your design it would be: You made your choose, and you choosed badly ... but here, let me give you YET ANOTHER chance, even if you ignored all those warnings i gived you before ... and if you will ignore this one aswell, i shall be very sad about you ... wich is your punishment by the way.

Funny enough, i had the very same situation in my last tabletop session ... we get to classic Indiana Jones and invisible bridge situation ... we were suppose to proove our thrust by cross the abyss, but our Wizard decided to levitate instead of steping into the void ...
DM decided that she did not proove her thrust, and therefore the invisible bridge unmaterialized for her ... when her levitation ended, she begin to fall ... and now:
DM: Dont you want to reactivate it and get up?
Wizard: No.
DM: Really?
Wizard: No.
DM: You keep falling into the abyss ... all you can see is the edge more and more distant.
DM: Dont you want to reactivate it and get up?
Wizard: No.
DM: Im trying hard to hint you here ... so: REALLY?
Wizard: Oh ... okay, i levitate back up and try to cross the bridge on foot.
DM: You crossed the bridge safely, as the rest of the group did before you.

Funny story, but not exactly great desing if you ask me. :-/

Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 05/07/21 10:01 AM.

If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Joined: Aug 2020
veteran
Online Content
veteran
Joined: Aug 2020
Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Niara
- If the checks involved were not multi-tiered all-failstate checks. That's garbage design to begin with.
I dont even understand this sentence ...

I think what Niara's trying to say here is that they have a problem with the encounter having multiple dice checks that can each individually lead to your character's death. I for one agree that this is bad design but since it's been a while since I played through this encounter and don't really remember it well, I can't confirm if this is an accurate assessment.

Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Originally Posted by Niara
In talking about how you'd love to do it as a DM you're also highlighting an additional design failure - Everyone else just stands there and watches you feed your head to the Illithid and does absolutely nothing, and there are no options or prompts for them to do anything, in any way.
Wrong ...
There are options, you just need to search them actively ... instead of simply expect the game to guide you step by step ... this is not tutorial anymore. O_o

(i shall instert video here, when it will be uploaded ... youtube is somehow stubborn today. -_-)

The problem here is that your companions are not independent entities anymore ...
YOU are in control ... that means, if you want THEM to do something, YOU must be the one who will do it. laugh

But as you can see, options are right there. wink

You make a lot of good arguments here but this one I still can't agree with. Especially the one about companions not being independant entities. They very much are, at least as much as any companion in any crpg. They can still make choices you don't control, initiate dialogues, make judgements on your actions, etc. A significant part of the game will consist of their character stories, which will require them doing things outside of your control, such as Asterion secretly killing animals for blood.

As a more in-depth example, at the encounter with the Gith patrol, Lae'zel will turn to your character and and seek a prompt from them for how to talk to the patrol. You're not expected to directly take control of her, and I would argue that such an option actually makes *less* sense than any of your companions stopping you from gettingn eaten by the mindflayer. What with the fact that if it got to eat, it would presumably regain some amount of strength and be able to be a greater threat to them, so killing the thing would be in their best interest. My point though is that I don't think you can argue that the companions are no longer independant and shouldn't be expected to act independently when they act independently all the time, up to and including speaking up for themselves in dialogues.

And one final thing, the game never teaches you that you can select other characters outside of combat (unless they started doing that in patch 4, I could have missed that). I'm being lenient on this point though since while I think we should judge Early Access on its own terms, I also accept that it only makes sense for tutorials to be among the last things added since they have to finalize all the content and stuff first.


Originally Posted by RagnarokCzD
Funny enough, i had the very same situation in my last tabletop session ... we get to classic Indiana Jones and invisible bridge situation ... we were suppose to proove our thrust by cross the abyss, but our Wizard decided to levitate instead of steping into the void ...
DM decided that she did not proove her thrust, and therefore the invisible bridge unmaterialized for her ... when her levitation ended, she begin to fall ... and now:
DM: Dont you want to reactivate it and get up?
Wizard: No.
DM: Really?
Wizard: No.
DM: You keep falling into the abyss ... all you can see is the edge more and more distant.
DM: Dont you want to reactivate it and get up?
Wizard: No.
DM: Im trying hard to hint you here ... so: REALLY?
Wizard: Oh ... okay, i levitate back up and try to cross the bridge on foot.
DM: You crossed the bridge safely, as the rest of the group did before you.

Funny story, but not exactly great desing if you ask me. :-/

Also I think that your DM's choice is perfectly valid from a storytelling perspective. People differ and it ultimately comes down to what the players at the table want, but I personally believe that part of a DM's job should be steering players away from dumb, unsatisfying outcomes. If the player wanted their character to face the consequences of their actions then fine, if in-character there was no way to avoid the fall, then fine. But if the character could still cast levitate and carry on then to have them die from not doing it would to me seem pointless and unsatisfying, and I wouldn't let my player do that unless they understood that that was what was happening. So as far as story design, helping a player make an in-character choice that makes sense feels like good design to me. But like I said, that's just my philosophy when it comes to DMing.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Niara
In talking about how you'd love to do it as a DM you're also highlighting an additional design failure - Everyone else just stands there and watches you feed your head to the Illithid and does absolutely nothing, and there are no options or prompts for them to do anything, in any way.

In fact, this is not true. If you start to "succumb" to the monster, then one of the companions will tell you "what are you doing, you idiot! get away from him!", in my case it was Astarion (I do not know what others say). And at this moment you still have a chance to move away from the monster. Yes, they don't kill him, but they don't "just look" either.

I've never died in this scene, never! Yes, I killed fishermen, or one of them, but die by monster? It is necessary to purposefully want it or be not very smart. At an early stage, it is clear that the creature can control you, game give you THREE CHANCES TO CHANGE your MIND. THREE WHOLE CHANCES. even npc tell you 'stop you're dumb!!!' and you still do it? You can safely interact with the monster and not die. Because you have three chances to leave. In this scene, everything is fine with game design, but you can argue about the logical thinking of some players.


I don't speak english well, but I try my best. Ty
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
I think what Niara's trying to say here is that they have a problem with the encounter having multiple dice checks that can each individually lead to your character's death. I for one agree that this is bad design but since it's been a while since I played through this encounter and don't really remember it well, I can't confirm if this is an accurate assessment.
It would be bad desing ...

But if you check the video i posted, you can notice that all other checks are actualy your rescue anchors:
- First check (Int) > risking peer into Mind Flaers thoughts ... aka. trap.
(The other option here is free yourself ... from the way it is written, it is clear clue from DM what you should do in his opinion ... there is even no check, its clear route to safety)
- Second check (Wisdom) > chance for you to save yourself, since you decided to risk ... and it didnt work wery well for you.
(other option is not the check ... its embracing your fault, its not your thought btw ... you are controlled)
- Third check (Wisdom) > again, change to save yourself ...
(again other option in embracing your fault ... since same as in previous option, you are allready controlled)

And note that in litteraly any part of this process you can both cast guidance to boost your chances to save yourself ... or simply smash its squishy head, to make it sure. laugh
Therefore i claim that if anyone dies in this particular scenario ... the only one he can blame is himself. laugh

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
You make a lot of good arguments here but this one I still can't agree with. Especially the one about companions not being independant entities. They very much are, at least as much as any companion in any crpg. They can still make choices you don't control, initiate dialogues, make judgements on your actions, etc. A significant part of the game will consist of their character stories, which will require them doing things outside of your control, such as Asterion secretly killing animals for blood.
There is missunderstanding ...
I was talking about this particular moment ...

Sure, they could have some action (read as: sentence) of their own ...
And as we can see in that video i posted, Shadowheart specificly told my Tiefling "Get Away from that thing!" (without voice tho, so i gues it was some unfinished stuff, or glith ... or i managed to bug it when i switched them) ...

My point is that active companions in your conversations dont simply go and save your skin automaticly, that is simply not how it works ... you control them, you are suppose to do that.
Yes, im aware that they can and do coment your actions, make judgements, or do some "out of screen" activities ... so they seem more alive ... but that is entirely different story. smile

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
As a more in-depth example, at the encounter with the Gith patrol, Lae'zel will turn to your character and and seek a prompt from them for how to talk to the patrol. You're not expected to directly take control of her, and I would argue that such an option actually makes *less* sense than any of your companions stopping you from gettingn eaten by the mindflayer. What with the fact that if it got to eat, it would presumably regain some amount of strength and be able to be a greater threat to them, so killing the thing would be in their best interest. My point though is that I don't think you can argue that the companions are no longer independant and shouldn't be expected to act independently when they act independently all the time, up to and including speaking up for themselves in dialogues.
To be completely honest i would like take direct control much more ... Lae'zel dont seem like somebody who would ask for your permision, or guidance ... she KNOWS what she is suppose to do, and therefore she do it. After all, you are lesser creature, unless you are also Gith ... and even then, she obviously conciders you to be beneath her, since she keeps lecturing you. laugh
Therefore taking direct control would seem much more immersive to me, so i kinda hope that this particular part of that conversation is actualy just a placeholder.

As for the rest ...
That is again different situation, Lae'zel leave your party and sprint to her kin before conversation even started, and even then she acts only as a interpeter of your party ... if she would suppose to work the same way in situation we discuised, she would have to kill the Ghaik before you even start talking to it. laugh
And once again ... all do Lae'zel is forward(?) your Main charaters decisions, she dont actualy act by her own, if you think about it.

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
And one final thing, the game never teaches you that you can select other characters outside of combat (unless they started doing that in patch 4, I could have missed that). I'm being lenient on this point though since while I think we should judge Early Access on its own terms, I also accept that it only makes sense for tutorials to be among the last things added since they have to finalize all the content and stuff first.
Honestly i dont know ... i didnt read litteraly even single tutorial message, since im precisely that kind of smug (insert insult here) ... who presumes he will figure things out later, and then he panic when he dont know how to do something. laugh
Maybe that saved me, since i was really curious about what those buttons do. smile

But dont get me wrong, when i talked with that Illithid for second (since i passed wisdom check first time laugh ... also i was curious what will happen) time, i died too. smile
I believe its just matter of point of view ... i see there nicely done trap, someone else see there bad desing. laugh

Originally Posted by Gray Ghost
Also I think that your DM's choice is perfectly valid from a storytelling perspective. People differ and it ultimately comes down to what the players at the table want, but I personally believe that part of a DM's job should be steering players away from dumb, unsatisfying outcomes. If the player wanted their character to face the consequences of their actions then fine, if in-character there was no way to avoid the fall, then fine. But if the character could still cast levitate and carry on then to have them die from not doing it would to me seem pointless and unsatisfying, and I wouldn't let my player do that unless they understood that that was what was happening. So as far as story design, helping a player make an in-character choice that makes sense feels like good design to me. But like I said, that's just my philosophy when it comes to DMing.
Well yes ...
Maybe that wasnt so clear as i believed, my point was that there should be allways only certain amount of warnings, before player have to suffer consequences of ignoring them all ... and i believe you had enough of them here. smile

The example i write was only for fun, and we had fun in tabletop ...
In PC game, we have autosaves and quick saves for the same purpose. smile
Therefore i dont see any "upgrade" in adding another few chances to save yourself ... its just polonging the inevitable.

Last edited by RagnarokCzD; 05/07/21 01:27 PM.

If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Jul 2014
Location: Italy
I don't think Niara is making a bad argument in general, if applied to other moments during the EA, but I think the fishermen/mind flayer encounter is a very bad example to hold on to as casus belli, because it's way more forgiving of what she's giving it credit to be.
In fact, all the way through the scene there's one single path leading to your death as the single worst possible outcome but you are constantly offered options, both in dialogue and as practical actions, to avoid any danger and come off unharmed. Without even needing to rely on rolls.

The githyanki patrol would be a better example of Larian being a "mean, unfair DM".

Last edited by Tuco; 05/07/21 01:38 PM.

Party control in Baldur's Gate 3 is a complete mess that begs to be addressed. SAY NO TO THE TOILET CHAIN
Joined: Nov 2020
old hand
Offline
old hand
Joined: Nov 2020
Personally, I think both sides are kinda right in this argument? BG3 has situations that makes sense and are rewarding for taking different approaches while also punishing in ways that make sense, and situations that are inherently unfair from a game perspective or lack a good core to make it make sense or have solutions that feel rewarding.

I personally felt the Illithid encounter showcases many different approaches with violence, breaking the villagers out of mind control and has a lose situation that makes sense.
The githyanki patrol feels like it only has two solutions and one of them is inherently unfair.

Joined: Jun 2021
member
Offline
member
Joined: Jun 2021
With githyanki you can give Laezel free reign, persuade her to lie, interrupt her and talk to githyanki yourself (which is kinda funny if you are not a githyanki, but disguise yourself with a spell). Or you can kill githyanki and Laezel. My only wish is that giving away the artifact had more meaningful result.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Liberec
Originally Posted by Alyssa_Fox
My only wish is that giving away the artifact had more meaningful result.
You managed to give away the artifact? O_o
HOW?!

Every time i only mentioned it, they decided to kill me ... "swiftly as a reward". -_-


If my comments bother you, there is nothing easier than telling me to stop.
I mean ... I won't ... but it's easy to say. wink
Joined: Mar 2021
veteran
Offline
veteran
Joined: Mar 2021
I am 100% sure that the Githyanki encounter is going to get re-worked. Its got way too many problems and reactions that make little sense. Having the Dragon present breaks the encounter in so many ways and having the Kith'rak just leave instead of making sure the encounter - with the people who have the thing he was sent by Vlaakith to get - are properly taken care of is bewildering.

As many people have pointed out its a highly problematic encounter. Call it bad design but I think it would be more accurate to say it's simply unfinished.


Blackheifer
Page 5 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11

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