Showing 1-20 of 12,099 entries
By "ruins" you mean "makes it like D&D and unlike dos", but you should understand this is not in any way a bad thing for a D&D game in a different, pre-existing series.

If there is not one single thing left that is like DoS 2 by release day, that will be irrelevant.
Aug 14 @ 5:26am
In topic Is RTwP generally misunderstood?
Originally posted by cool-dude:
my experience with RTWP in team based Isometric games, is that pausing every 1.5 secs is generally required if you want to reasonably manage the battlefield, and it gets tedious after awhile because of it. RTWP works for more casual games like Mass Effect or Dragon Age, where micromanaging is minimal.

It's absolutely great for those of us who love to micro-manage.

The ability to let your chosen strategy play out every now and then (instead of re-iiterating exactly the same moves five times for a group of goblins) is a lovely advantage.

I like tactical pause because the player controls the flow of time - I pause like a turn-based game stops in the course of normal "rtwp" play, but also never, ever have to spend 20 minutes fighting a big group of kobolds or goblins when the strategy is "open with a fireball and then wipe up the remains with sword, hammer and bow unless any surprises occur", and more importantly the dev doesn't have to compromise the writing and RP by removing eg: a large group of kobolds looting because they make for time-consuming combat.

I think the truth is most people who like turn-based play can probably count a few tactical pause games among their favourites, and vice versa. They're both variations on the same kind of game-play, after all.

Originally posted by cool-dude:
I always say they make it sound like Diablo or an isometric Doom, and it's not as exciting or "adrenaline" pumping as that.

I'e only ever heard someone describe the rtwp combat in tactical party-based combat as "adrenaline" pumping when it seems really obvious they didn't really play them, and are trying to suggest they aren't good because rtwp.

None of the overhead view tactical party-based D&D/Pathfinder/PoE RPGs are action games (unless you really go out of your way to make them play that way, cheesy bg2 speed runs anyone :D ).

Again, though - I consider the "poles" here a bit dubious. A lot of longstanding fans of deep RPGs will have both types of games among the RPGs they rate, how could it not be so.
Aug 11 @ 3:23pm
In topic Is RTwP generally misunderstood?
I think the crpg thing comes from confused spectators seeing people referring to classic RPGs on one of the RPG grognard forums, which would tend in many conversations to be overhead view tactical party-based wRPGs, then getting that confused again with the term "crpgs" which means something else again, then crowbarring that into common usage on some forum somewhere, or something like that.

I only say that because without a Chinese whispers scenario, there is no explanation on offer where the term makes any sense or has any definition that is even vaguely related to the words being used.
Aug 11 @ 1:25pm
In topic How do I install Toy Box from GitHub?
Originally posted by Orion Invictus:
Originally posted by Holga Kilgor:
That's the source code, it is a different thing from the usable mod. The long way around would be to get it from github and build the mod from source.

The more practical answer for the purposes of this forum would be to a) download the stable version from mod nexus or b) go ask on their discord to see if someone hosts daily builds of the current (probably unstable) source
The source code has a sub-folder in it that seems to be the mod itself (i.e.: the bit that you actually want in the "Mods" folder). There's an issue with the zip created by a file in there, though, because it doesn't include a required dll.

Still, on the Owlcat Games Discord there is the "correct" zip, with the dll. I'll try that.

EDIT: It worked. Problem solved.
No problem at all, man. Happy gaming.
Aug 11 @ 1:12pm
In topic How do I install Toy Box from GitHub?
That's the source code, it is a different thing from the usable mod. The long way around would be to get it from github and build the mod from source, I wouldn't suggest that for someone who just wants to get playing the game with the mod.

The more practical answer for the purposes of this forum would be to a) download the stable version from mod nexus or b) go ask on discord to see if someone hosts daily builds of the current (probably unstable) source. I guess the place to do that might be here: https://discord.gg/wotr
To my way of thinking accessibility like this is an easy win to the extent you can manage to do it.

Just by eg offering a few alternative palettes you can open up your product to those affected by OP's issue, some dyslexic people, some visually impaired/light sensitive people, and so on.

Offering quite small tweaks to fonts/size/serifs etc. can allow even more people to enjoy your product. This is just the stuff you can do without having to drastically change everything, and improve the product for maybe 1 in 10 of your users. Not rocket science.
Aug 10 @ 11:48am
In topic Dirt, yes or no? (an informal poll)
1 Yes

along with blood, and day/night cycles.
Aug 10 @ 11:41am
In topic Space DLC!?
If we get a good D&D implementation and Larian gives good Faerun, the sky isn't the limit.
Aug 10 @ 11:39am
In topic Is RTwP generally misunderstood?
Originally posted by Aldain:
Originally posted by Holga Kilgor:

I don't think you're the alt of any forum user, but word on the street is that you might secretly be Sven.
While that's incredibly flattering, I think I complain about Bonus Action Shove and how High Ground used to give Advantage a bit too much for that to be true.
I'm tempted to believe you, but no you would say that, wouldn't you? I just don't know.
Aug 10 @ 11:35am
In topic Is RTwP generally misunderstood?
Originally posted by God King 069:
Originally posted by Holga Kilgor:

Yeah, I think in an ideal world every game of this type would let you pick and choose as you saw fit.

The old sticking point, though: Encounter design... which mode do you optimize your encounters for if they can be played with both?

Might also be an Engine issue too no? Where it may not have the functionality to allow for both or that the complexity to add it from scratch could prove to be too time consuming.

Yeah, I think a tick/turn-based "rtwp" system makes for a super-set of what you absolutely need for turn-based play (notwithstanding lots of UI work to make it play nicely) and the hard technical stuff like the AI, pathfinding etc is ready to go at the speed needed. Other way around, perhaps not so much.

It's not something we could realistically ask Larian to do - work solving complex problems with the outcome that they... er... increase the complexity of everything else, and give themselves encounter design headaches to boot.

A lot of magic would be required to make it give us all the best of both worlds. Clearly the only answer is to scrap turn-based play entirely ;P


Originally posted by Aldain:
Hey who's sock puppet account am I again?
I don't think you're the alt of any forum user, but word on the street is that you might secretly be Sven.
Aug 10 @ 11:14am
In topic Is RTwP generally misunderstood?
Originally posted by Sima Marlin:
I like combination of both, example : Pathfinder wrath of the righteous.

You can have both turn based or real time with pause modes, If I am on area I KNOW I can just walk over stuff, I use real time with pause, if I am on area I can die, I use turn based.

Simple, saves time too.

Yeah, I think in an ideal world every game of this type would let you pick and choose as you saw fit.

The old sticking point, though: Encounter design... which mode do you optimize your encounters for if they can be played with both?
Aug 10 @ 6:43am
In topic Is RTwP generally misunderstood?
Originally posted by Quillithe:
It's a case of one dominant approach becoming all what people think of for the genre,

This sentence (taken slightly out of context, sorry, but) jumped out at me.

I think the most credible implementations of D&D/Pathfinder in the last couple of decades or so have tended to be with tactical pause games rather than turn-based ones.

There are some obvious exceptions to this like ToEE but on the whole Baldur's Gate, Icewind Dale, Neverwinter Nights, Pathfinder, these games series have been associated with recognizable rules and content and depth as things the developer doesn't shy away from "inflicting on" the player. The gold standard tactical party-based D&D games have had this style of gameplay.

Although the OP is right, that some of the criticisms people level at active pause gameplay are... extremely suspect, there's definitely an element of association here between active pause gameplay and quality in a D&D RPG.

"All" Larian has to do is make a good D&D RPG that sits alongside those other games without shame, and the "spell" is broken. A tall order but I don't think it means deliberately making an all-time classic - I think another game that is good on the level of ToEE would do it.

Originally posted by dolby:
Originally posted by God King 069:

Don't give a damn. Trash mobs and trash fights as a term is around for a reason. It's not this all encompassing thing. It is to describe a very particular thing which is fights/mobs that are trash and serve no real point other than the things I already pointed out.

Just no... hell, no you have no clue what a trash mobs are.
LIke i said. There are trash fights in BG 3 and in TB as a mode deal with it. There is literally a fight in BG 3 that you can win without doing anything at all.. you just press next turn a few times you don't even have to autoattack.

There are two types of trash mobs, figths and there is a huge difference in it.
One type is the old one mainly used in singleplayer games and the main characteristic is that they do not respawn.
Second type is the trash mobs that were invented in MMOs and those respawn endlessly this is the huge diffence and it changes everything about it and those are pointless indeed not rlealy but they feel pontless at least cos they respawn and this is where they got their new name from, it comes from Mmos.

Singleplayer trash enimies are important and they have more then one point.

They help fill the world so it's not empty they help sidequest with character making it more intresting, they extand gameplay, they help players feel powerfull, they help player level up and so on and on...

LIke i said before, Larain davs are on the recond and others how they use trash mobs in BG 3 and other TB games why and how... You can look it up on youtube if you do not belive me...

i mean most goblins in BG 3 have between 7 and 10 hp none existing AC and they all die to single attacks. i mean you can little just autoattack them to death exactly the same as in Rtwp same goes with other enemies.
maybe this will help if autoattacking is not your thing you can always throw those trash mobs around: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01r5Mkvts3w

cos i can understand that you people get cofused and think cos it takes a round or 2 to kill something in tb you think it's not a trash mob anymore... But that just cos TB takes along time it takes those 2 rounds 3 minits but it's done i 20 seconds in rtwp. So that video should help you understand easier.

All of those are not mandatory you can just walk right around them or sneak pass or go under them or whatever the case is lots of ways to ignore them if you are too lazy to bother with trash mobs just like in Rtwp games...

Thank you for pointing out that there are specific concepts related to the term that are not grounded in how they make a given player feel. This was starting to get a bit annoying.
Aug 9 @ 6:08am
In topic Is RTwP generally misunderstood?
It is true that you have a bigger budget available for the AI to calculate actions in sequential turn-based play, meaning that a competently programmed AI could be better.

It is not true that the "overlapping actions" effect of concurrency is an erroneous side effect of rtwp or phase-based game-play: initiative exists to try and bring its benefits (including realism) to sequential turn-based play.
Aug 9 @ 5:39am
In topic It doesnt feel very baldurs gate....!!?
Originally posted by G.W. Sunbro Greg:
Originally posted by Fast:
I bought this on GOG as i had a discount code.

But i cant exactly say what it is but its not really baldurs gate at all.

It feels like it was inspired by baldurs gate to some degree but its not exactly in keeping with the previous design philosophies.

Also, the characters. No where near as strong as the line up in BG1/2 , actually even IWD1/2 (dlcs etc) general npc quality is better, Its by far the weakest line up, of very basic linear characters with a sort of surface level facade of depth. This was a big disappointment to me.

Beyond that are the games feeling. It feels like it is a caricature of what baldurs gate is. And although those exaggerated features can feel ok without too much critical thought and keeping your view surface level, the moment you take a moment to critically review what you are playing you realize it all falls away and doesnt really offer a baldurs gate experience but more...A Larian Games experience inspired by Baldurs Gate.

On the one hand, The game is somewhat fun and feels okay, I would say there are some things that feel tedious or a chore but overall it plays well, and is consistent and coherent in its ideas.
The problem is when you put Baldurs Gate as the title, you are somewhat obliged to stay in keeping with previous iterations regardless of your beliefs on what baldurs gate is to you.

There is a certain charm and quality to BG1/2 that this game absolutely does not capture and I would hope this being early access , Larian can please take a moment to think about the things and details that made Baldurs gate...Baldurs gate.


You're right. It's not a Baldur's Gate game as we knew it before. It's a Divinity Original Sin styled game influenced by Baldur's Gate.
Expecting anything else will likely ruin your experience.
Sorry for saying this, mate, but the way things are in the world right now, I doubt there could be another company who'd do a BG3. So we get what we get.

You're not wrong.

Another point for perspective - it's a tactical party-based RPG and not a third person action RPG crudfest using whatever EA calls its current "engine".

If you'd told BG fans 10+ years ago in the wake of DA2 that BG 3 would be an honest-to-goodness overhead view tactical party-based RPG, by a successful maker of that sort of game, in a market where there are lots of other overhead view tactical party-based RPGs, even good ones we would have laughed; Brent Knowles' famous blog post seemed like the epilogue of that kind of game.

Even if it kinda sucks that it's turn-based only and 4 chars, we are far away from worst case scenario.
Aug 8 @ 5:37am
In topic Is RTwP generally misunderstood?
Originally posted by Alealexi:
Originally posted by Aria Athena:
This makes no sense to me and it's being said a lot. Probably links back to the first one. There is a thing, I believe it's called "difficulty", and you can increase it. Then you use another thing to win.

So you think pre buffing and running in circles is strategy? That is all you have to do in PF to rofl stomp your way to win in any difficulty. That isn't strategy.

Originally posted by Harukage:
I am not really sure what you are talking about but RTwP in Pathfinder WotR works exactly like that. You multiclass/prebuff untill your atack bonus and AC are over 40 and auto-atack untill things are dead.
There is no doubt about that. If you deny that - you never played on highermost dificulties. You just can't play in any other way, enemy statbloat does not allow for anything else.

Spoiler, if you think tactical pause gameplay is to run in circles or auto-attack in real time because you think it's quote "all you have to do", it's you. You're doing what the OP is talking about.

Tell us more about how tactical pause gameplay is inherently the same as starcraft because *you* desperately kite and rely on auto-attack to survive.
Aug 6 @ 10:57am
In topic Is RTwP generally misunderstood?
You're correct in all aspects, frankly.

Some people think tactical pause gameplay is RTS gameplay because of their ignorance. It's easy for me to see the distinction because I very rarely enjoy RTS gameplay even if i try to. Most of my favourite RPG or war games are tactical pause, turn-based or phase-based. I think what you have here is a lot of people came to DoS2 without playing anything more involved than Zelda or Fable, then misunderstood or 'heard someone say' what rtwp gameplay is, and never bothered to check before pretending to know what it's like.

On people finding it hard to track what's going on in "rtwp", well that's probably fair, I remember an interview with a Larian designer where he said sequential turn-based play makes gameplay easier to understand for the average punter, and simplification is one of their obligations.

If you want to make a mass market RPG, "easier to understand" is a good thing.
Aug 6 @ 8:44am
In topic It doesnt feel very baldurs gate....!!?
Originally posted by Runic Tunic:
If you looked I corrected it to "I can make an argument.
Fair enough, that's much more sensible and I retract what I said. :)
Aug 6 @ 8:39am
In topic It doesnt feel very baldurs gate....!!?
Originally posted by Runic Tunic:
Originally posted by Fast:
It doesnt sound like baldurs gate. sounds/music

It doesnt look like baldurs gate. Visuals, setting

It doesnt play like baldurs gate. Pacing, encounters

It doesnt use companions as supplements like baldurs gate. Overly convenient and tropey

It doesnt feel like baldurs gate. Tone and atmosphere are not in the same universe

It doesnt use D&D 5e proper. Uses maybe 10 pages of rules total, and disregards the other 1800 pages.

It doesnt have a day/night cycle or perception of time. Time as a foundational part of 5e and D&D in general.

It doesnt use proper spell system in 5e. liberties with scrolls, somatic spells, spells that just are not 5e.

It doesnt have a branching opening or story arc. All paths lead to the same place. Linear.

It doesnt follow the rules of explortation in 5e. see long rests, short rests, travel time, prices and cost of equipment, various packs etc in the PHB.

It doesnt follow the rules of magic items or how loot should be worked into encounters or exploration.

It doesnt use 5e monsters. Many are D&D "like" monsters, and those it does use generally speaking have incorrect stat blocks.

It doesnt respect DC tables. DC seems to just be arbitrary not related to the various tasks mentioned in the books.

It doesnt respect the encounter table in XGTO. Encounters are specific in how they are built in 5e, this game doesnt care.

It doesnt respect or use CR appropriately anywhere or the matchup table to build official proper encounters with the various difficulties and types.

It doesnt use official stat blocks.
You've literally said this repeatedly, despite the fact many people have either provided direct counters to your cliams, or simply flatout disagreed.

As someone else said, if you truly are interested in providing feedback to improve the game, screaming the same thing over and over regardless of feedback makes it sound more like you are trolling than actually interested in feedback.

Sure isn't actually contributing to the convo that's for sure. No one's gonna take you seriously or bother acknowledging your points if all you do is scream the same points regardless of input.

"Counters to your claims"...

Counters to their opinions? People vocalize how they feel about a product for various reasons. Perhaps in the hope of reaching the makers, perhaps encouraging people with similar opinions to speak up, too, perhaps catharsis.

There's no reason they can't do this on a web forum. There's no reason they shouldn't speak up if a product in development does not do X how, or to an extent they would like, because perhaps it doesn't do X well enough *yet*, but will if people make enough noise.

People saying "your opinion is invalid I have countered your claims QED" are just laboring under the silly delusion that their opinion on a game is objective. It's fine to express your counterpoints, but you can't expect to "Counter someone's claims" about whether the musical motifs and ambient soundscape are captured well enough for their liking, or whether jokes hit the right tone, or how it might be a good idea to have day/night in a game with playable vampire types, the "look and feel of the world" isn't right, or heck, they don't like the portraits and from then on they will agree with you or fall silent, lol
Aug 6 @ 8:23am
In topic It doesnt feel very baldurs gate....!!?
Originally posted by Mr.Soul:
"The problem is when you put Baldurs Gate as the title, you are somewhat obliged to stay in keeping with previous iterations regardless of your beliefs on what baldurs gate is to you."
Mean like this? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur%27s_Gate:_Dark_Alliance_II
That's basically diablo in BG setting.

No, that game is not, never was, and was not marketed as part of the Baldur's Gate series, it was a console spin-off. Likely most fans of the PC series have never played or touched it.

For that matter, the name has a strap which readily differentiates it from the Baldur's Gate series. If we used the name "Baldur's Gate: The Descent" for this, it would make it clear that it's associated, but not a mainline sequel. Nobody would expect it to be anything but a fresh take.

I'm not lamenting it being called BG 3 at this point, but let's be straight-up. Let's not start pretending and doing mental gymnastics to confuse the issue. Calling it Baldur's Gate III, quite literally naming it "the third in the series", is a business decision to get people to buy it who liked Baldur's Gate/Baldur's Gate II.
Aug 6 @ 5:06am
In topic It doesnt feel very baldurs gate....!!?
Originally posted by NixAhmose:
Originally posted by Quillithe:
It's a D&D game in the Baldur's Gate series, it would be really out of place for it to be grimdark and gritty. Even the darker of the two, BG2, was never really that gritty. You're imprisoned, tortured and a bunch of your friends are killed none of which seems to bother you at all within seconds of getting into the city and getting to go on cool adventures.

And in BG1 your father figure gets murdered right in front of you and there assassins after you, and then there's a bunch of fourth-wall breaking joke characters and you go to a circus.

Yeah, sometimes I genuinely have no idea if some of these people even played the classic BG games. Literally the most popular and iconic character from the is a guy who talks to a space hamster named boo. BG1/2 definitely has its dark moments, especially at story critical moments, but they also had a ton of stupid and goofy moments as well.

I'd say it has to provide a vehicle to believe the dark stuff, and if not fully RP at your computer, get a slight echo of a real campaign if you want.

Believing the bad, or brutal, or sad, or bitter-sweet stuff is real at times, perhaps even taking the heroic acts seriously at times, buying into the idea that the stakes are high, but combining this with some whimsical light relief, this is the essence for me.

Of course you must work to get into it, a step beyond suspension of disbelief. I don't think the existence of whimsy inherently hurts things, probably the opposite really - but it's the tone and never, ever, EVER referencing the OOC, even obliquely, because that's like the worst kind of fart in the RP elevator.
Showing 1-20 of 12,099 entries