Baldur's Gate 3 - the 2nd thread

[Amentep]

 

[IndiraLightfoot]

Some basic info from recent articles and videos:

-combat is turn-based and terrain, such as height differences and gaps, and the kind of terrain, will be something that affects your tactical choices

-Over 100 hours of gameplay

-Lots of player freedom and quest-environment-puzzle-solving-system flexibility (more like PnP)

-You can split the party and play at different locations at the same time in MP

-True to the lore of Dungeons & Dragons’ Forgotten Realms world, (should be a given, though?)

-15 races and subraces

-8 classes (a bit skimpy? I'm not into 5th ed, so I wouldn't know.).

Edited March 2, 2020 by IndiraLightfoot

[JerekKruger]

1 minute ago, IndiraLightfoot said:

-8 classes (a bit skimpy? I'm not into 5th ed, so I would know.).

There are 12 in the core rulebook so yeah, that's skimpy and a little surprising.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Didn't the original Baldur's Gate only have 8 classes? Finally something in the tradition of BG!

So we've got 8 classes, of which Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Warlock, and Wizard are in. If 8 is the final number I think Paladin, Druid, and Ranger fill out the rest of the line up while Barbarian, Bard, and Sorcerer are left out.

[MrBrown]

8 classes is a bit smaller than standard, but... Some of the basic ones are a bit boring. Barbarians, for instance, don't have much else to do than put rage on, basic attack, basic attack etc. Rangers also don't really have any interesting unique things, being just a mix of Druid and Fighter really. So those two are ones I'd drop first. I'd drop Warlock too, but if that's confirmed, then probably Sorcerer. Not sure what the 4th one is, but probably Bard, Paladin or Monk.

 

Not sure if I'm that excited about it being Turn-based. Modern RPG design tends to include so much fights, turn-based can make the game really slow to play. So, hopefully they don't put too much fights in.

[213374U]

1 hour ago, IndiraLightfoot said:

-8 classes (a bit skimpy? I'm not into 5th ed, so I would know.).

Something to look forward to in the Definitive Enhanced Complete Edition.

Are there PrCs in 5e?

[MrBrown]

25 minutes ago, 213374U said:

Are there PrCs in 5e?

No.

Though every class has specializations that you choose at level 2 or 3. Unlike Kits in 2nd ED and the BG games, they don't take stuff away from you, just slightly change what you get.

[Chilloutman]

Only 8 classes huh? thats a bit dissappointing, sounds like ready for DLC xD

[algroth]

I wonder how much of that alleged 100+ gameplay will be spent resolving encounters that would otherwise last under a minute in RTwP. The demo already felt really stilted and frustrating, and isn't it meant to be one of the tutorial fights as well?

[Bartimaeus]

That was a mistake I thought PoE1 already made, and that wasn't even turn-based. If you're going to slow down combat and make each fight more meaningful through increased difficulty and required strategic consideration (which are fine goals in of themselves), you have to reduce the amount of fighting in order not to bog down the game with random trash fights that take way too much time and effort to get through. I can only imagine the problem will be amplified manyfold with turn-based combat.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Bartimaeus

[kanisatha]

1 hour ago, algroth said:

I wonder how much of that alleged 100+ gameplay will be spent resolving encounters that would otherwise last under a minute in RTwP. The demo already felt really stilted and frustrating, and isn't it meant to be one of the tutorial fights as well?

This^. That encounter with the devourers was so mind-numbingly aggravating. TB fans keep saying in TB games you don't need the "filler" encounters. Well, I don't see any difference (proportionately speaking) in number of encounters between RTwP and TB games. At least if TB games did actually have fewer combat encounters that would be a plus, not because of fewer filler encounters but because it would represent less time spent on aggravating TB combat.

[xzar_monty]

Personally, I find TB utterly baffling in CRPGs. RTwP is obviously impossible in tabletop RPGs, which is why turn-based combat exists in the first place. But as actual combat is never turn-based, I can't for the life of me understand why developers want to implement that system in computer games.

[uuuhhii]

1 minute ago, xzar_monty said:

Personally, I find TB utterly baffling in CRPGs. RTwP is obviously impossible in tabletop RPGs, which is why turn-based combat exists in the first place. But as actual combat is never turn-based, I can't for the life of me understand why developers want to implement that system in computer games.

many old player are obsesses with the old rules they spend hundreds of hours to understand

and one of the few advantage of turn base are how aoe are much less likely to hurt friendly

[JerekKruger]

2 hours ago, algroth said:

I wonder how much of that alleged 100+ gameplay will be spent resolving encounters that would otherwise last under a minute in RTwP. The demo already felt really stilted and frustrating, and isn't it meant to be one of the tutorial fights as well?

One day someone will make a turn-based game that genuinely has a small handful of really engaging and clever fights, and does away with filler. One day.

[algroth]

8 minutes ago, xzar_monty said:

Personally, I find TB utterly baffling in CRPGs. RTwP is obviously impossible in tabletop RPGs, which is why turn-based combat exists in the first place. But as actual combat is never turn-based, I can't for the life of me understand why developers want to implement that system in computer games.

I'll be playing the DOS games shortly so I might have to change my tune here in the future, but as it stands right now, I do feel that turn-based is something of an appendage in the CRPG sphere left from the TT days for the above reason you mention. Since DnD and derivatives are usually verbally communicated and are hugely dependent on dialogue between the players, there's no way players can interact with one another simultaneously without turning a combat sequence into sheer incomprehensible cacophony. TB needed to exist back then because every player controlled a separate unique piece and they all had to communicate with one another what they were doing or wanted to do, and back to the DM who ran the scenario and so on - but a lot of those things are simply automated and happen either in the background or as part of an audiovisual experience instead, and are allowed to happen simultaneously whereas before it would've broken a scene. Worse yet, in single player RPGs the case is often that a player has to play the role of four to six different characters at once, meaning cycling through that many turns themselves whilst also having to wait on the X turns X amount of enemies take when themselves acting. Maybe some of this can be automated or juxtaposed, i.e. all enemies acting in simultaneous fashion or having turns being assigned to parties/players opposite to characters, but I do still feel that is one degree of artifice more than is really necessary.

I think an issue that RTwP runs into often, and which is often replicated in the way the community criticized the system and speaks in favour of TB instead, is that very often RTwP doesn't convey the flexibility that either TTRPGs have, or DOS managed with its implementation of the TB system, and in turn assume flexibility and RTwP combat to be mutually exclusive. I think the issue here is that a lot of RTwP games treat pause as a literal pause, a moment you can stop time to assign any actions you otherwise could in real time if you had the speed or time to do so. I think that the pause system could be taken further, as demonstrated to an extent by games like Transistor or even The Outer Worlds with its TTD-specific mechanics and so on: basically start treating pause as a strategic interface opposite to a mere time stop, opening for many more options such as terrain interactions, specific actions with enemies like dialogue or the likes, or bodypart targets, that could otherwise be concealed in real time mode for example. I don't see why you'd need to divide and dilate combat sequences by having one character act at a time when you could literally have them all act simultaneously whilst allowing the player to set or take a turn as they need them to manage their party and actions - you'd be saving time, you'd be creating a more immersive or natural flow in the combat in turn and so on.

Again I hear DOS handles TB exceptionally well so maybe they also find ways to make TB flow better and not become the bloated, stilted experience I usually find it to be, but at least in the BG3 presentation it feels exactly like TB usually feels for me.

[algroth]

The other massive difference between TTRPGs and CRPGs I feel is also that TB in the former isn't just fulfilling a strategic or comprehensive role, it's also aiding the game's performative component. If a player fails a roll, that fail can still act as a catalyst for a scene or situation or change - typical example is how often a failed roll can so often produce a humorous outcome and so on. I think this sort of performative value in CRPGs is lost because for the most part a game - which in some level is an automated DM - can't improvise or account for such events the way a human DM can. In a way, failing in TTRPGs is part of the fun - far less so in most CRPGs. Disco Elysium is the odd one out as a game that actually tapped into the performative side of CRPGs really well, but its approach to "combat" - if you can call it that - is completely different to what more traditional DnD-based/inspired CRPGs do. In most CRPGs a fail is a fail, and in TB mode especially the end result is frustration and a lot of wasted time before you can attempt an action again. RTwP doesn't add the performative element at all but it at least mitigates these frustrations a lot more.

Edited March 2, 2020 by algroth

[xzar_monty]

25 minutes ago, algroth said:

Again I hear DOS handles TB exceptionally well so maybe they also find ways to make TB flow better and not become the bloated, stilted experience I usually find it to be, but at least in the BG3 presentation it feels exactly like TB usually feels for me.

This is naturally a matter of opinion, but my (rather limited) experience with D:OS2 suggests that the turn-based combat system used in that game is in every way inferior to the RTwP systems used in the Infinity Engine games (BG) or PoE/Deadfire. It's not immersive, it looks stilted and unnatural, and it just doesn't flow.

Its most obvious drawback is its blatant artificiality. First, you have a group of characters wandering around the map. Then you encounter some other beings that may or may not turn out to be enemies. If it's the former and combat begins, suddenly everyone starts moving around according to a strange and funny-looking choreography, the most striking feature of which is that everybody spends most of their time just waiting around for others to do something on their turn. For me, nothing in this system works.

[Chilloutman]

People who are complaining about TB being stupid or lazy obviously never played chess. Go tell Persians that they were idiots because game played thousands of years is poorly designed

[213374U]

I find it strange that people say that TB breaks immersion, is artificial or whatever, but RT with pause is fine. I mean, it's essentially the same contrivance, except that you mostly leave it on autopilot until the NPC script ****s up. Then you pause, correct and re-engage auto-pilot. Either that or you furiously micromanage your 4- or 6-man party, issuing new instructions every time a character finishes their current action, turning the game into a micro turn spacebar-mashing fiesta.

Now, if people were arguing for pauseless real-time as in MOBAs, I could see the point. For me, the biggest draw of TB is the promise of a reduced amount of mindless filler combat vis-à-vis RTwP. But apparently some people will deny even this, dragging the discussion into "alternative facts" territory.

Pointless.

Edited March 2, 2020 by 213374U

[xzar_monty]

19 minutes ago, Chilloutman said:

People who are complaining about TB being stupid or lazy obviously never played chess. Go tell Persians that they were idiots because game played thousands of years is poorly designed

Do you intend anyone to take that a serious argument? It just doesn't work on any level whatsoever. Chess is a different game. There is nothing wrong with chess. However, cRPG characters are not inanimate pieces of wood/marble/whatever that are placed on 8*8 squares, etc.

[Chilloutman]

yeah and car is not a horse, go tell people riding horses they are idiots, we have cars...

[xzar_monty]

You are the only one talking about idiots here, did you notice? It's not very kind, in my view. And you're still not making any kind of argument.

[xzar_monty]

7 minutes ago, 213374U said:

For me, the biggest draw of TB is the promise of a reduced amount of mindless filler combat vis-à-vis RTwP.

But surely the fact of mindless filler combat is a feature of encounter design, not a question of TB vs. RTwP.

For instance, PoE and the White March in particular was full of mindless filler combat, but that was due to poor design, it had nothing to do with RTwP. In Deadfire, an awful lot of filler combat was cut out. Less encounters, a much better gaming design.

It's also possible that I misunderstood what you meant, in which case, please correct.

Edited March 2, 2020 by xzar_monty

[Chilloutman]

1 hour ago, xzar_monty said:

You are the only one talking about idiots here, did you notice? It's not very kind, in my view. And you're still not making any kind of argument.

ok touche about idiots, my bad

 

yet your argument made no sense, chess pieces are literally wooden toy soldiers on battle map. Its basically 1 to 1 with combat in CRPGs. In game characters are not humans either

[xzar_monty]

1 minute ago, Chilloutman said:

yet your argument made no sense, chess pieces are literally wooden toy soldiers on battle map.

Of course they are. Did you actually read what I wrote? I wrote that cRPG characters are not toy soldiers, like chess pieces are. They are representations of people, and we can all see them happily walking around the map. That's the point where your forced analogy to chess breaks down.

Again, chess is a great game, but the analogy is not helpful.