Baldur's Gate 3 - the 2nd thread

[Oner]

Nonetheless, if challenge is balanced around the point buy stats, that means they're perfectly adequate for the job and going in with higher stats means you have an "unintended" advantage.

[Azdeus]

23 minutes ago, Oner said:

Nonetheless, if challenge is balanced around the point buy stats, that means they're perfectly adequate for the job and going in with higher stats means you have an "unintended" advantage.

Yeah, granted that I don't know how they will design this, but it should be noted at character creation or you'll have many people complaining about how easy the game is. I doubt the vast majority of people playing this game will have the game mechanics knowledge about this.

[Gromnir]

attractive nuisance.

funny bit o' law which basic means that even if you diligent warn people o' dangers, 'cause kids is stoopid you need take extra precautions. construction sites is most notorious examples. plaster warning signs 'round equipment and hidden dangers ain't enough to protect contractor 'cause is a given kids will ignore such signage and play in construction sites. contractors gotta take extra precautions beyond what is strictly reasonable 'cause there will be those kids who ignore good advice regarding dangers o' heavy equipment and nail guns and thin bits o' plywood covering holes filled with stagnant muddy water and bits o' metal and/or glass.  legal reasoning is that kids is dumb and they cannot help themselves so contractors need be a bit more responsible. 

is sad but true that the reasoning for attractive nuisance applies equal to snot-nosed kids trespassing at construction sites as it does to 20 and 30 somethings who is faced with point-buy v. re-roll in a crpg.  the path to self-destruction is easy to see, and for little kids and gamers, is impossible to avoid?

HA! Good Fun!

Edited March 25, 2020 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

apologies for double.

our suggestion regarding bg3 point buy and reroll, not that anybody at larian or anywhere else for that matter has reason to listen to our game suggestions, would be to make reroll a post completion unlock. after game has been completed once, then the options box for the reroll feature becomes subject to interaction and let folks go-to-town with +90-minute rolling sessions to achieve attribute spreads more in-line with a high-level character than a starting adventurer.

problem being am suspecting there is a whole lotta folks who want reroll included. end o' consideration.

reality is reroll doesn't hurt folks such as Gromnir save for it renders any kinda meaningful balancing efforts pointless. larian does have a built-in defense to insulate 'em from balancing considerations as they may choose to blame inequities 'pon d&d rules as 'posed to considering how crpg differences makes pnp rules a starting point rather than a final judgement. regardless, becomes kinda stoopid to expend effort on balancing when from start you got reroll. 

there is gonna be cheesy exploitive nonsense which works in bg3 which ain't possible in pnp 5e. exploits will work not in spite o' faithful implementation o' 5e rules but because. am suspecting presence o' reroll is a harbinger which warns us in advance o' larian indifference to balance, which will not doubt come as a welcome relief to many.

and those o' you who is utter dismissive o' crpg balance, we know what you look like in rl.

HA! Good Fun!

 

[Chilloutman]

Its video game, the simple fact of load/save make it exploitative. Stats reroll is really the lesser of exploits really

[uuuhhii]

rolling for skill check are the more obvious and destructive mistake a rpg could make

just hope it doesn't repeat again

[Oner]

I have to agree. Going for the "TTRPG experience" is cute and all but a video game won't turn your failed roll into a story beat.
On the tabletop If you fail a charm roll against a hostage taker, the situation won't automatically escalate, you can try a few different approaches until the GM says you've hit a breaking point (or rolled a 1). In a CRPG, you failed the roll, the hostage dies. Have fun reloading.

[Gromnir]

y'know what's really exploitive? _________. reroll is no biggie 'cause __________.

*insert favorite dismissive emoticon here*

disadvantage for us, having been on crpg boards since last century, is fact these balance arguments is like living groundhog day. same bad arguments getting repeated over and over and overandoverandoverandoverandoverandover.

bg3 is not pnp. bg3 is a single-player crpg. re-load is a known and predictable quantity. ps:t went so far as to make dying part o' the mechanics and dying were in fact necessary to advance the game. nevertheless, reload happened and were anticipated in ps:t and scores o' similar crpgs.

reroll, on the other hand, is utter outside control o' developer as the range o' possible attribute spreads is vast.  

HA! Good Fun!

[kirottu]

10 hours ago, Gromnir said:

our suggestion regarding bg3 point buy and reroll, not that anybody at larian or anywhere else for that matter has reason to listen to our game suggestions, would be to make reroll a post completion unlock. after game has been completed once, then the options box for the reroll feature becomes subject to interaction and let folks go-to-town with +90-minute rolling sessions to achieve attribute spreads more in-line with a high-level character than a starting adventurer.

I like it. Add the cheese for New Game+.

Edited March 26, 2020 by kirottu

[213374U]

6 hours ago, Gromnir said:

re-load is a known and predictable quantity. 

Yep. It was mentioned in one of the videos posted in the thread that save scumming, while not impossible, was discouraged organically because of how rolls and their outcomes played out. A series of successive rolls leading to different outcomes may not discourage the die-hards that will settle for nothing less than *epic success* in each roll, but it will do away with the situation that Oner described where an early fail means a reload.

Age of Decadence made save scumming almost irrelevant as well by virtue of making non-starter scenarios akin to banging your head against a wall. And for all we know the game could incorporate a system similar to that of Alpha Protocol's checkpoint system and delayed consequences to further discourage save scumming.

Of course, it's entirely possible that this is nothing but industry-standard puffery and Swen really is just full of it.

In any case, I'm thinking the reroll will probably not be like in the originals where the added totals were dumped into a pool for the player to assign freely. More likely it'll be based on the p&p system where you roll 4 and add the best 3 up, write that down, repeat x6. Then you assign the values to each stat. Which significantly increases the needed time to get truly broken totals to possibly... days? Weeks?

There's an almost poetic beauty to the idea of folks spending literal days playing the BG3 stat generator slot machine only to get a broken game experience as reward.

Edited March 26, 2020 by 213374U

[ComradeYellow]

Most modern games are incorporating failsafes against save scumming anyway (streamlined leveling/deleveling, autosave only, etc.).

[Sarex]

Why do you need to combat save-scumming at all? Let people play how they want to. Wasting time on that is beyond pointless.

Edited March 26, 2020 by Sarex

[ComradeYellow]

Just now, Sarex said:

Why do you need to combat save-scumming at all? Let people play how they want to.

It's not about "combating" it's about streamlining and overriding the cognitive and tedious impulse to do so with better mechanics.

[Oner]

18 minutes ago, Sarex said:

Why do you need to combat save-scumming at all? Let people play how they want to. Wasting time on that is beyond pointless.

If I made a game I'd combat it in the sense of not including design that makes people feel forced to use it or overly rely on it.
I remember more than one game where I had to save-scum conversations to figure out the labyrinthine logic of how dialogue nodes were connected, and again, I'm fine if in a PnP game I fail a roll because things don't end there, but in a CRPG if I invest in persuasion then I expect it to actually do it's job, especially because failing a roll in an inherently more rigid situation/medium is a much more explicit failure state.

Also I'd argue watching the loading screen instead of playing the game isn't what you payed money for, that's what is really beyond pointless. Meanwhile, figuring out how to make your game work well is literally what your job is as a developer, the exact opposite of time wasting.

[Sarex]

No one is forced to use anything, and designing a game specifically because you don't like that people will reload when something doesn't go their way or they think is unfair is beyond stupid (looking at you XCOM). People play games, that weren't designed for it, on Iron Man mode. Why? Because it interesting for them. People save scum games. Why? Because that is interesting for them. If you think that a save system is a bad mechanic, make a game without it, don't spend time thinking up how to work against it.

This discussion has already been had for PoE. Sawyer was preaching how some Baldur's Gate encounters where cheap/bad because you had to reload them and metagame them (save scum). I don't see how focusing on that made PoE any better in the end.

[Oner]

Everyone who takes a measure of pride in their work and strives to improve their skill at their craft - and by extension, the end result - wants to deliver a good product. Just because you don't see the point of it because it's "beyond x, y and z" doesn't make it a wasted effort, sorry. Not every proposed solution to a given problem is going to be golden (or every problem be an issue that actually needs to be tackled), but that doesn't mean working to improve upon it is a bad thing. 

As you have pointed out, some games only let you save when you quit, others put consequences to your actions behind several hours of gameplay, others heal you up between encounters, or they learn to clearly label conversation options so you don't accidentally continue a dialogue instead of going through all the questions.

The problem isn't that people save-scum, the problem is that they have a reason to do it and again, figuring out how to sidestep that is part of your job as a game maker, or at least, game makers seem to agree, since it's something that comes up again and again.

Edited March 26, 2020 by Oner

[213374U]

Save scumming is a symptom, not a cause. The causes themselves can be diverse -- perceived unfairness (XCOM syndrome), design that rewards it, learned habits on the player's part, etc.

So yeah, anything that seeks to address the cause(s) and leads to less time spent looking at progress bars and more time playing the game is a step in the right direction.

edit: beaten to the punch. And more eloquently to boot.

Edited March 26, 2020 by 213374U
too slow lol, l2forum

[Sarex]

The problem there is that what is unfair to some people is not to others and the reasons for reloading are not always a failed encounter. You can't please everyone. We all know what happens when you try.  You get a bland and uninteresting game. Focus on your vision and making it as fleshed out and interesting as possible instead of wasting time on figuring out how to stop people from playing the game a certain way.

At the end of the day it boils downs to this for me. Every solution I have seen to the perceived problem of save scumming seemed forced to me. The most elegant way that games with a save system address that problem, in my experience, is by offering an iron man/permadeath mode.

Edited March 26, 2020 by Sarex

[uuuhhii]

reload closest save after failure are the basic instinct of player

the problem is what cause the failure

is it obvious to the player

what player can do to make a difference

if the enemy are too strong then come back again after a few level up

if this boss have high acid damage then use protection spell accordingly

in the case of rolling 1 on a skill check

there is nothing to do other then roll again

as design for video game

it doesn't work

[Mamoulian War]

Well, it depends on the player. Even if developers do something to prevent savescumming, people find out how to do it. As best example are achievement runs in Paradox Grand Strategies, where it should save everytime you quit. If you fail in something, you drop the game and you can bypass that autosave.

When I was younger, I have savescummed almost every game. Now I know, It's just waste of time. Even if I fail my rolls or dialog choices, I continue with the outcome. It brought me in PoE lot of interesting and surprising dialogue outcomes and consequences.  *shrugs*

[Wormerine]

14 hours ago, Sarex said:

People play games, that weren't designed for it, on Iron Man mode. Why? Because it interesting for them. People save scum games. Why? Because that is interesting for them.

True, but only if certain situations. Some reloading might be impulsive, rather then voluntary. 

I for one hate skill checks in single player RPGs - failed trap or pickpocket roll in Kingmaker or Wasteland2 result in re-load for me. Not because it is fun. Getting unlucky roll simply sucks, and not being able to open a chest, which I could open or having a trap blow up in my face is not interesting. It's a failure outside my control. 

Disco Elysium managed to do rolls somewhat right, as failing a roll usually resulted in memorable story bit, led you to take a different path, sent you on a mini-quest to improve you chances. Though those lasted only for a while... Passing rigid "wind" check is easily the bottom point of the game, and in the hindsight the roll-system did damage other parts of the game, like leveling up, by encouraging to hoard points, rather then spending them.

[Sarex]

49 minutes ago, Wormerine said:

True, but only if certain situations. Some reloading might be impulsive, rather then voluntary. 

I for one hate skill checks in single player RPGs - failed trap or pickpocket roll in Kingmaker or Wasteland2 result in re-load for me. Not because it is fun. Getting unlucky roll simply sucks, and not being able to open a chest, which I could open or having a trap blow up in my face is not interesting. It's a failure outside my control. 

Disco Elysium managed to do rolls somewhat right, as failing a roll usually resulted in memorable story bit, led you to take a different path, sent you on a mini-quest to improve you chances. Though those lasted only for a while... Passing rigid "wind" check is easily the bottom point of the game, and in the hindsight the roll-system did damage other parts of the game, like leveling up, by encouraging to hoard points, rather then spending them.

I agree, but there is also the flip side of the coin. I'll go with the example that was used when PoE was being made, the Litch fight (Kangaxx). For me that was one of the most memorable fights, because you were wiped instantly and had to reload a bunch to figure out how to position and in the end even how to cheese the fight. To Sawyer it was everything that was wrong with BG2 as you had to metagame/savescum the fight as you had no knowledge before it. You can argue the results that had with PoE.

1 hour ago, Mamoulian War said:

Well, it depends on the player. Even if developers do something to prevent savescumming, people find out how to do it. As best example are achievement runs in Paradox Grand Strategies, where it should save everytime you quit. If you fail in something, you drop the game and you can bypass that autosave.

When I was younger, I have savescummed almost every game. Now I know, It's just waste of time. Even if I fail my rolls or dialog choices, I continue with the outcome. It brought me in PoE lot of interesting and surprising dialogue outcomes and consequences.  *shrugs*

And were the games better because they had the preventative measures for savescumming, or just more tedious?

[Mamoulian War]

3 hours ago, Sarex said:

And were the games better because they had the preventative measures for savescumming, or just more tedious?

Well, to me PoE was not tedious, I got asskicked in few fight for the same reason, as by Kangaxx, because I did not know the composition of the whole group waiting on me. Some of them were really hard, but I was able to survive the fight and even if I used most of the spells and consumables on it, I did not reload to try for better outcome, I just enjoyed it as it was offered. And if comparing it with BGs in my eyes, I enjoyed my first game of PoE more than BG, but on par with BG2. Maybe the story in PoE is for me better.

Edited March 27, 2020 by Mamoulian War

[Skarpen]

I personally don't like rolls in video games because there usually is no scenario for unsuccessful roll or scenario is unplayable. Like in some games failing to pickpocket makes everyone in town hostile. What should a player do? Load a save game, that's what.

Second, if there is always a slight chance of success there is an opportunity for min maxing where you don't put point's in those abilities, because if you need to roll them you can save/load your way to success. 

Far better mechanic for video game is 0/1 approach. Either you have the skill (or appropriate level of it) or you don't. So if you want to open every chest then you need to hone your skill, if you want charm your way out then you have to develop your persuasion etc.

[Wormerine]

5 hours ago, Sarex said:

I'll go with the example that was used when PoE was being made, the Litch fight (Kangaxx). For me that was one of the most memorable fights, because you were wiped instantly and had to reload a bunch to figure out how to position and in the end even how to cheese the fight. To Sawyer it was everything that was wrong with BG2 as you had to metagame/savescum the fight as you had no knowledge before it. You can argue the results that had with PoE.

I think it'is fine for optional, high difficulty enemies to require more discovery and trial&error, though Kangaxx is also a example how artificially difficult fights in BGs could get. I liked the fight more, when I didn't undestand the underlying systems. As I tend to be mechanics driven these days, slapping much of immunities on the enemy doesn't particularly excite me. The most extreme example of this problem were Basilisks in BG1, who were the deadliest/the easiest enemy depending if you happen to have one specific potion or spell.

Memorable? Yes. Good and fun design...?Noooooooooooo.

I wouldn't qualify this as safescumming, though. Casting finger of death on a dragon and reloading when the roll doesn't go your way is safescumming (guilty as charged). Having rolls on skillchecks, encounraging quick-saving before every lock and box and reloading if dice doesn't go your way is savescumming. What you mentioned sounds to me more like "you should have all the tools you need to succeed when you get locked into combat", which in general sounds like good design principle. There's also a part of Megabosses I didn't like, as they like to start pulling new moves deep into the combat without chance for you to know they are coming, like the bloody mage who unlocks all the wards. It's just a waste of player's time.

A good rogue-lite gives you all the tools and information you need from the get go, you just won't succeed without the practice. An RPG system with good amount of depth, should be able to achieve the same thing. Using meta-knowledge instead of difficulty is cheap, but PoEs do have a tendency to be undertuned with how easy it is to overlevel most of the content. That's a problem, but BG design you mentioned is not a solution, I don't think. I am certain of it, in fact, thanks to some encounters in the Pathfinder, and its limited inventory making sure you won't have what you need at any given time. 

Edited March 27, 2020 by Wormerine