BG3 is a bad cRPG.

[Zeks]

It's not a bad rpg by itself but it is needlessly convoluted for a cRPG experience and most of it has to do with chances. Random rolls should have never broken out the combat subsytem. The uncertain chances on perception, dialogue, disarming and stealing pollute the experience for the majority of the players and should be "can/cannot" deals. Sure, some purists will love the uncertainty of the outcome, but the average player will essentially have to answer the question of "how much time do I waste by loading and is savescumming worth the annoyance?".

The result of that horrible chance based game design and subsequent save scumming playstyle is that the playtime of an average player will be bloated by at the very least several hours of *completely wasted* time.

I can't say that I hate BG3, in fact I like it... every time I don't have to deal with the chance based component. I've dropped the game several times for multiple weeks just because the need to savescum to go into the direction I wanted the game to take took too much of my patience by how completely artificial it felt.

The difference between cRPG and tabletop rpg is that in cRPG you are expected to load on failure. But bringing too much tabletop failure states into a cRPG blurs the definition of what a failure state is and whether and when you are supposed to reload to the point that it becomes unclear and annoying.

Oh, and "perception check failed" is just completely atrocious. If the characters didn't notice something *there is literally no reason to show the player notification about it*. Those failure messages are there *exactly* to make you savescum

[Marmottty]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von pyton357ru:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Marmottty:

Yes, what you are describing is not D&D 5e. Maybe we should allow this game based on D&D 5e to resemble D&D 5e?

How so? It's up to DM to decide results of failure, so taking a degree of it into accound does not go against the rules (it's not obligatory, and requires some more thought, but -- it's well within the letter of rules IIRC).

It doesn't go against but it is houserules.
Here your DM (Larian) choose to do it in a more conventional way.

[RhodosGuard]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von pyton357ru:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RhodosGuard:

"I want more second chances because I cant bear the thought of failure"

More like "If I wanted to gamble, I'd just go to Vegas".

"Wha wha wha, my Paladin with 8 int doesnt know as much about magic as my 20 int wizard, and because of that I failed at something and the game didnt allow me to retry more than 5 times"

[BulletSiSi]

I'm sick of the kind of people who evaluate everything that doesn't suit their preferences as bad work. Have some basic aesthetics and respect. You can say you don't like this kind of game. Yet it's pretty rude to call a game of the year with such sincerity and so many fans as bad.

[pyton357ru]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von RhodosGuard:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von pyton357ru:

More like "If I wanted to gamble, I'd just go to Vegas".

"Wha wha wha, my Paladin with 8 int doesnt know as much about magic as my 20 int wizard, and because of that I failed at something and the game didnt allow me to retry more than 5 times"

So, it takes about two messages to move fans of dice rolls to get down to pointing fingers, and shouting kindergarten nonsense. Sad yet fascinating...

[seeker1]

Again, the point of RPGs is the fun of developing a character so that they can better at certain things. Some of the fun is deciding how you are going to develop them. Do you want them better at stealth, or at combat, or at talking their way out of things.

So again I ask - if you want to simulate a character getting better at things - how do you do this without random checks/tests - and the way you do this on a tabletop is rolling physical dice. BG3 "simulates" rolling dice for your visual satisfaction, but it's technically just using a random number generator.

This is why every RPG I know of uses dice rolling. The systems may vary widely, but they all involve it, SOMEHOW. Warhammer 40K. GURPS. Call of Cthulhu. Pathfinder. Star Wars RPG. Could keep going.

This game, even without save-scumming, often lets you reroll something 4 times if you have the Inspiration points. 4 times. And BTW, if you have 8 lockpick kits, you can retry lockpicking something 8 times. Seriously, that's pretty friendly to the player.

Also, there are TONS of buffs that improve your skill checks. From spells, abilities, items. Want to succeed more often? Use them.

[Quillithe]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von seeker1:

Again, the point of RPGs is the fun of developing a character so that they can better at certain things. Some of the fun is deciding how you are going to develop them. Do you want them better at stealth, or at combat, or at talking their way out of things.

So again I ask - if you want to simulate a character getting better at things - how do you do this without random checks/tests - and the way you do this on a tabletop is rolling physical dice. BG3 "simulates" rolling dice for your visual satisfaction, but it's technically just using a random number generator.

This is why every RPG I know of uses dice rolling. The systems may vary widely, but they all involve it, SOMEHOW. Warhammer 40K. GURPS. Call of Cthulhu. Pathfinder. Star Wars RPG. Could keep going.

This game, even without save-scumming, often lets you reroll something 4 times if you have the Inspiration points. 4 times. And BTW, if you have 8 lockpick kits, you can retry lockpicking something 8 times. Seriously, that's pretty friendly to the player.

Also, there are TONS of buffs that improve your skill checks. From spells, abilities, items. Want to succeed more often? Use them.

I think there's an interesting distinction here I hadn't really thought about.

CRPGs by their nature don't know your character in advance, so they can have static checks. If Fallout asks for 50 persuasion skill, that's a check you'll get sometimes and not other times, depending on your character at that point.

Tabletop RPGs obviously can't do that very well. A DM is going to know if you'll pass or fail a static check if he's coming up with it on the spot, so it's really just him saying 'no'. Even if one is planned in advance he's going to have a pretty good idea if it's a no. This is obviously not a good design. Thus the rolls so he can say 'yeah right' to a difficult task instead of 'no' and get surprised (or at least it's less likely to be viewed as the DM just denying the player)

Then this has a tabletop ruleset so it kinda needs to go with rolls to feel right.

[ZZZZZ]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Zeks:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von mr wolf:

clearly you dont know what dnd is

that's why I explicitly said "cRPG", not RPG. c matters

cRPG means inspired by real life roleplay games like DND.. crpgs will always have dice rolls and chances.. RPGs usually dont have that

[Skipper]

Wait, what? It's a bad cRPG because of RNG? There can't be many cRPG's out there without RNG playing a massive role in some aspect, so I don't think that's a fair criticism.

There's enough buffs and re-rolls, and you get plenty of opportunity to nudge the results in your favour without simply save scumming. A hard skill check is no more interesting imo, because even skilled lock-pickers or conversationalists will make a mistake, so there's never a "guarantee" of success just like with everything we do in real life.

I like the slight random edge to it, and there's always save scumming for those who need a perfect run and can't handle the occasional RNG fail... which honestly sounds like me too, but I still enjoy a bit of unpredictability.

[seeker1]

Every CRPG is either adapting an existing TT-RPG to be used on a computer, like BG3 does with 5E D & D, or is using its own "homebrewed" system the developer created (that's D:OS and others). They all use random number generation, even if not all show what looks like a dice roll to the player as a visual effect. ALL of them.

A static skill check is worse, IMHO. I would at least have a CHANCE of failing a high DC persuasion check, rather than automatically failing a high skill check, with no CHANCE to succeed anyway.

You know that DC 99 check at the end of the game? No spoilers. You can succeed it if you roll a natural 20. (I wouldn't have thought so - but yep). Small chance is better than no chance.

[Hobocop]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Skipper:

Wait, what? It's a bad cRPG because of RNG? There can't be many cRPG's out there without RNG playing a massive role in some aspect, so I don't think that's a fair criticism.

There's enough buffs and re-rolls, and you get plenty of opportunity to nudge the results in your favour without simply save scumming. A hard skill check is no more interesting imo, because even skilled lock-pickers or conversationalists will make a mistake, so there's never a "guarantee" of success just like with everything we do in real life.

I like the slight random edge to it, and there's always save scumming for those who need a perfect run and can't handle the occasional RNG fail... which honestly sounds like me too, but I still enjoy a bit of unpredictability.

There's actually a pretty decent feedback loop as well for using resources to reroll and secure checks for key dramatic moments because Inspiration grants XP and you often get Inspiration based on the results of said dramatic moments.

Bypassing combat encounters with a direct check also nets you all of the XP you would have gotten for killing everyone.

[Maraxus]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Aerohank:

I think the average player can in fact deal with the randomness. Hence why the game is so massively popular. I think you (and also myself) just can't deal with failure unless forced to do so. It's a personality flaw, not a flaw in the game. For me I've solved this by just playing honour mode. It's more fun to see where the game takes me and living with the consequences of attempting something and failing is actually a lot more interesting than just getting your hand held and auto succeeding with everything you do.

I don't think it's a personality flaw more like we have been conditioned by previous games to do this. We must do it the "right" way or it's game over. BG3 has some hilarious ways in which you can fail and still continue. For example when rescuing the gnomes from the moonlight towers, in my recent run I opened their cages with the master switch before talking to them. They started to run away trying to escape and got killed by the guards... it is obvious in retrospect that they would do that because they don't know you, but because I was thinking in videogame terms(I am the main character, I have a quest to rescue them, so the NPC's are just waiting for me right?) I really didn't think about the consequences of doing it this way... and this is not game breaking, they won't be available in act 3 but the game is designed with this result in mind...

But it took me 3 playthroughs to accept and find this result hilarious... initially because we are used to "video game logic" this kind of gameplay feels very uncomfortable(and thus the "need" reload, etc). :p

[Foxtrot39]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Zeks:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von mr wolf:

clearly you dont know what dnd is

that's why I explicitly said "cRPG", not RPG. c matters

Pretty sure that the TTRPG is still nearly all about dice roll which is just as RNG as cRPG only difference is the freedom for DM to improvise and the player nigh unlimited dialogue option to each situation with cRPG save scumming being a thing

[Cur]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Zeks:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Cur:

The game isn't an RPG when you save scum. It's a movie. Might as well watch Lord of the Rings if you want to rail road your campaign down a specific path. The entire point of playing BG3 is to be at the mercy of the dice. It's fine if it's not your style of game but it has nothing to do with the game design. It's a great crpg, you're just a poor crpg player.

By that definition almost every game out there is a movie

Lots of games are becoming movies in all but name. And that's fine because there is an audience for that. Great games like God of War are essentially interactive movies that are really fun to interact with.

BG3 is a game about living and dying by the dice. If you choose to save scum that's fine, but you're the one breaking the game. It has nothing to do with the game not being well designed. It has everything to do with you choosing to play it your way and still being disappointed. If you CHOOSE to save scum it's just sad to also be pissy that the game doesn't give you an option to disregard it's entire gameplay loop lol. It's like complaining that you can miss shots in an FPS game. Why doesn't the developer give me a gun that can't miss so I can always hit the shots I want to hit? Why doesn't Larian just let me pass all the dice rolls? Same ♥♥♥♥.