Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Don't show us the difficulty class when going through a skill check

Is there any reason to mention this that im missing? :-/
Bcs im sory, i dont see any. It dont afect my point at all.

Yeah you should know better ... concidering how long we are talking to each other around here, how often, and how many times i repeated it ... i would hope you could at least by now remembered that when i quote single sentence its not to fabricate arguments, but to present what i react to as close as possible ...
Sigh ... well, maybe in another two years.

And ... is there any sign that it would be this case?
Like ... i dunno, at least, for example, majority of responces in this topic having same problem?

Since i didnt get that inpression. :-/

Well even if we would, those data wouldnt be sufficient.

You also have to take under concideration why they use quick load!
There is many people who are loading just to observe all options, we are testing after all ... many people are reloading just to get desired outcome for their youtube videos ... some people reload just so they can fail really supereasy check, just to find out what would happen ... and as we were told abowe, there are even people who are trying to fail on purpose for some weird reasons.

And even more importantly, we would need to know how many of those players is even bothered by the fact they are reloading.
I mean ... i freely admit that i savescum in Skyrim as madman, when im skilling pickpocketing ... and when i say madman, imagince kadency of reloading sometimes even every 5-7 seconds.
But i dont give a shit. > Therefore my savescuming in such measuring wouldnt be relevant.

Indeed ... and hopefully Larian also conciders context of those numbers.

I beg your pardon?!
First of all, i just need to say this ... again, you should know better, than asuming other people motivations, clearly this isnt your strong side. -_-

I have read OP suggestion, took it under concideration, draw conclusions from what would happen ...
And come to decision that even if his suggestion would be implemented as he asked, it wouldnt change the situation he described at all.

I even took another step after and suggested other use of his request so he CAN actually have what he want, but i can serve actual purpose ... wich as it seems, was completely ignored by everyone else.

What is so "condescending" about that?
If anything, its you who are acting acording to its definition (at least when translated) towards me ... but i gues i should thank you for that, sometimes i forget that there still are people unable to see beyond some stupid sticker they put on my name. -_-
So thank you for reminding ...

So how about ... do?


Just an idea ...
Maybe not as apealing as dissecting what I did again ... but at least in accordance with the forum rules. -_-

They did it to themselves, they have only themselves to blame ...
Anyone who is blaming the system is just unable to admit he screwed up.

I dont care what you say, i dont care what your GDC say, nor about how many of them there is or what that shortcut even mean ...
This is my opinion and i stand by that.

Question:
Where did those bandits came from? Is their existence conditioned by failing dialogue roll in completely different situation?
So ... it means Larian would need to prepare and script combat scenario that nobody who dont fail there will never see? O_o

Another question:
How exactly should game decide wich of those two outcomes for each scenario (fail/succes) should be used?

Another one:
Im sory but i have to ask ... what would be the point of rolling anyway?

I mean, i see that there is difference in your example ... but when its not clear if i even suceeded or failed, there is no way to find out, and all outcomes seems to be same at first sight ...
Why should i even care about what, why, or how i roll? :-/

And finaly most important question:
Since the argument was savescuming ... does it somehow prevent it?
(Just for the record i still think it cant and shouldnt be prevented, but i try to stick to the topic.)

I mean what is holding me back to open that chest, find out its full of junk and reload anyway?

Another question:
Wouldnt that also remove good feeling of succes?

I mean ... if i see that i will need to roll 18+ ... and i do ... there is kinda "yes!" feeling ...
Is it here aswell? Since i dont really i know if i suceeded? O_o
I cant help bug feel like it wouldnt be.

I dont really want to repond for geala here ...

But something simmilar happened to me aswell ... in my case it was player vs. character conflict of interest.
As i played my Githyanki, i wanted their armor ... so i had to kill them ... but my Gith would never, so i decided to be completely honest with them, just as naive Lae'zel ...
But if my Gith wouldnt be as naive as Lae'zel ... i would probably aswell pick persuation and pray to fail.

Try Vampyr ...
Either you get exactly what you wanted, or you find out you were wrong.

I belong to that second group.

I totally get this, I just like to see what story my character creates if things are handled a bit differently on a subsequent playthrough.


I've never played ME, but I've always thought I might like it. Only so much time!

I shall continue trying to ignore thee, though after two years I don't have much hope either.

You are just a very curious being. I mean why are you on the forum opposing suggested changes and yet fundamentaly believe that game design doesn't matter. If a change is made, like skill checks get modified or push get nerfed why do you care? If you don't enjoy the new system, it is just in your head afterall, and it is your fault for not enjoying the game. Afterall to quote you:

I was worried I maybe didn't explain my thoughts the best. I didn't mean that actually in the game the polite decline could be either a success or failure, I meant that when you got a polite decline, since it's pretty neutral, you wouldn't actually know. From MY perspective, the party can accept that response, or decide to attack, kill and loot the polite deniers. But I don't personally see reloading a save as an option.

I think if the game had many different dialogs like this, save scumming would be a less attractive option for the exact reason you mentioned. If the result of a dialog with skill check isn't definitively good or bad, then hopefully the player(s) will choose to continue on with the results as-is, rather than reloading and rerolling until they get a different result, which just might not be a better one!




That does make more sense now. I suppose I was thinking more so for first time play throughs. Like, "I guess I'll go ahead and look like the good guy by and try to persuade her not to do the thing, and hope that I fail persuasion, so she does the thing and attacks me, then I can kill her like I really wanted to" as opposed to just doing the thing you actually wanted to do, which was kill her, even though there might not be a way to do that and still look like the "good guy".

A reminder to anyone who needs it that negative comments about people’s attitudes or behaviour are not okay.

And if anyone has any problems with anything posted, they can PM me or report a post, which is to be preferred to getting into a row here.

Hell yes! I think the beauty of RPGs is that different things can happen and you just might not get to experience the whole thing, at least not in one play through.

This is where I didn't put my thoughts into text very well. It's not that the game is deciding, there might still only be 2 outcomes, but if many times during the game the outcomes seem like in a gray area, YOU don't know if it was a success or failure. But you're apt to find out later ;-)

The easiest answer for this is because it's D&D, the game we came here to play.
Would you ask your DM "what's the point of rolling if I don't know if I passed or failed?" But, maybe you would ask that. I wouldn't because the DM is weaving the story for us and I'm trusting them to give me an entertaining experience.



Nope, it wouldn't prevent it, but I feel like it might discourage it if the result of the effort of savescumming might not become apparent until hours later, and it might turn out you would have preferred the original option!
Imagine you decided to reload and reroll until you finally convinced them to give you the locked chest to deliver rather than politely denying your request. Then you found out that the lock can't be picked and maybe hours later in the game you get ambushed and it's a bad experience all around. Then you find out you denying your offer was them deciding they liked you and didn't want you to get ambushed because their cronies were waiting to ambush anyone coming along the road with the "chest of goodies"


Maybe yes, maybe no, different strokes, different folks...

I see ...
Well, i cant really say i agree ... but i get what you mean.

So ...
Either box of Junk, or box of Treasures ...
Or box of Junk, or denial ...
Or denial, or box of Treasures ...
Yes?
No denial, or denial situation.

That confused me a little.

I mean, yeah ... pushing consequences futher could work.
Not really sure if its possible any time tho, actually i am quite sure it isnt.
When you are freeing Lae'zel, persuating Gibblebog, or Nettie, or trying to save Arabella ... you allways have to get results imediately.

Still interesting idea!
The more content player stuck in between save and consequence, the less they will be motivated to reload.

*> Now when i think about this, maybe adding autosave after finishing roll would help aswell ... make reloading a bit more tedious.

Well, first of all, you have no choice than go on (or finish entirely) in DnD with DM ...
So that is entirely different situation that can hardly be compared.

But yeah, i gues i would question my DM if there would be no way for me to say if i pased or failed.
If i may use your example ... if i would try to [PERSUATE] those people to accept my help, and lets say i would roll 20 (or in general big, lets say 15+, number) and they would tell me "no thank you help is on their way, we are good" ... i would question what was the point of that roll, since im quite sure i passed and yet they dont really seem persuated to let me help them.

Thats what i thought.
+1

Wich i presume i would find out in either different playtrough, or after reloading ... by them just telling me?
(I mean, if they really like me, it wouldnt make sense to keep that information secret, right?)

If so ... then i would love it.

I see ...

No, still not getting my point across.
There's still only two possible outcomes, success or failure. You just might not be able to tell for sure if you succeeded or not because the results were ambiguous.



Because that polite denial could have been the success when the failure was them being a lot tougher than you and kicking your ass just for asking.


It would make sense if they were, for instance, organized thieves and happened to like you but weren't about to tell you their ambush secrets...

Just my thoughts and ideas in any case.

Not saying this is right or wrong, and as I’ve said here I’m not a TT player so am in no position to judge, but after Matt Mercer was announced as Minsc in BG3 I watched some of the Critical Role vids and was interested that he rarely tells his table whether they’ve succeeded or failed, just tells them what happens after they give him their rolls. Sometimes it’s obvious, but plenty of other times it wasn’t clear whether a better (or worse) outcome might have been available and I’ll admit I did like his approach. I’m sure others who are far more familiar with other DMs or are DMs themselves will have their own, better-informed, views on what works best though.

Wow i didn't think my topic would blow up like this, but i'm glad it did, discussion is a great thing. However, my general message wasn't entirely about savescumming, rather that BG3 has very binary approach to skill checks with only two states - success|failure. In TTRPG you never know for sure what the DC was, and DM(good DM) can generate dozens of outcomes based on your roll. And failure or low roll should never frustrate a player in TTRPG, it should provide fun expirience too because we basically play it to have fun. That's why i posted this topic, as i don't feel that in BG3. And as i understand, that they won't rework the system entirely i suggested to at least try to hide it

It is actually rare for a DM to say out loud whether you "failed" or "succeded" going through a skill check

Oh yes, this time i expressed myself poorly ...
I mean it as three separate situations, not three possible outcomes in same.

That would be perfectly valid answer.

---

In mo tabletop veteran either, i get to one group and played cca 1,5y long campaign by now. And luckily for me, i really resonate well with our DM. ^_^

Still ... it would depend a lot on context ...
When i roll with clean intention, and tht intention isnt reflected in the outcome ... i ask.

I just asked him on Discord, and he confirmed the same ... he tryes to describe situations as clear as possible, but if someone have doubts, there is nothing easier than ask.

I have been a DM for a long time and my principle is to never reveal the difficulty coefficients, whether they are low or high.

In some campaigns, I received complaints from players and adapted to tell them what the difficulty of the test was after it was completed.

In TTRPG, we have the opportunity to always be adapting rules for better game flow and for the enjoyment of players.

Within a video game, I believe we need closed rules and binary systems for most tests, and BG3 has been doing this very well!

In my opinion, if the difficulty of the test were only shown after it was performed, it would be ideal, providing a variety of actions that could be used with or without bonuses even if it was not the right moment. After that, seeing that you used a charm for a difficulty 6 test brings the feeling that you should have paid more attention to that situation.

There is nothing you can do to stop people from save-scuming all you can do is remove save so stop trying...

This does absolutely nothing againts save scuming. And is funny as hell.

You can still save scum to get the wanted result doesn't matter how the game gets to it. So hiding everything or dc or whatevere giving random fails whatever wont changes nothing.

If poeple are not happy with the result they will save scum. Some save scum just to see all the options... The only way to remove that is to remove save. Make them lose hours of gameplay... and even then people save scum or will just make mods.


btw:
IF RL DM does this and fudge rolls in nagative way just to fuck with the players you should find a new DM... i'm againts fudging all together, but ok i get it when it helps the players i can at least justify it a bit.

Best thing devs can do to minimze save scuming is give mutiple great outcomes that people will like, simple as that... making great narrative. Most people wont save scum if the outcome it good, makes sanse and is not gimiicky and helps if it's funny - cute or whatever. Problem is that every outcome costs money and time so there is a limit of how much you can do.

Yeah I got caught, because I'm the same kind of guy. I can understand that this is probably fine for multiplayer, but I'm a perfectionist in single player for several reasons. I have to proofread all the outcomes (translations) and I hate TT based dice dialogues. I am really disappointed that there is no option to disable them completely. I'm oldschool and like to select only the answers. And for me that would be the only way to massively reduce save-scumming. It was hell when proofreading to cross check the translations. Also, rp-wise, I always want as much dialogue as possible. Quick example with the Book of Dead Gods. Here I want to fail with strength, but pass with arcana and then religion.

I don’t think that’s necessary. I think of skill checks in a similar way as building character for combat - it’s an RPG, you create a character and you can’t excel in everything. Being able to easily bypass restriction that come from character builds, does invalidate a lot of appeal of a cRPG. If character can pass every skill check, than skill checks are themselves pointless.

It is perfectly fine to with hold certain specific interactions from characters not specialising in certain fields. Of course, it would be an issue if some substantial content was held hostage behind very specific quests but I can’t think of any such situation in BG3.

And than there is an issue of RNG heavy roll like d20 being rather chaotic in characterisation of our PC. Sure, I might have +7 bonus, but I rolled 2 so my smart wizard fails arcana check. But at the same time he rolled 20 on bashing the door open in spite of having 8 strength. I do think those situations could be turned good by life DM, but in cRPG they will just feel wrong. The game likely will have only one resolution for each situation, and each of those examples would need to be handled differently for different characters.

I agree with Wormerine. I personally don't have much issue with the random D20 skill checks, and I wouldn't want BG3 to remove them since this is a D&D game, but I do think that they're best in a live table environment, with a DM that can justify a strange success or failure. In a less flexible video game format, I do think a straight pass/fail based on meeting the target or not is better.

I think most of the time when you attempt something, you have an idea how difficult it is. The visible DC reflects that.

What needs to be absolutely hidden however, are the Perception checks. Revealing secrets on a failed Perception check is an incomprehensible design choice.