Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 is Trash

[mondblut]

That garlic sounds like a nice investment if you can trade two buds for a sword or a helmet.

Anyway, as I always said: if you can't be bothered to implement the basic logistics of transport and hired helpers, then keep your little incompetent hands off my inventory of unlimited size.

 

[Devastator]

I respect the idea of implementing logistics, but as a player, I'm far too lazy to do anything beyond organizing my inventory. If I had to worry about logistics, I would just play a monk or a similar class that doesn't require any equipment (besides a few trinkets). Or I would just play on easy and use the shit starter equipment.

 

[Iucounu]

Classic D&D already solved it by letting you hire henchmen, which high level adventurers with more gold than they knew what to do with would often do, both for transporting goods and for being cannon fodder in dungeons.

Skyrim lets you do that too.

Not one PC game using D&D rules adapted that mechanic.

Maybe that disqualifies Skyrim. In any case, storing your loot on companions is not a real gameplay challenge, it's just an expanded inventory.

I respect the idea of implementing logistics, but as a player, I'm far too lazy to do anything beyond organizing my inventory.

It needs to be done in an interesting way, of course. Maybe requiring you to find cheap loyal labor in nearby villages that won't steal from you or betray you off to robbers. Then you'd need to find traders willing to buy suspect loot without tipping you off to local authorities. It could be just as involved as finding the treasure in the first place.

 

[JarlFrank]

Skyrim lets you do that too.

Skyrim lets you recruit 200 henchmen?
Last time I checked you could take one companion along with you, I never did because companions in first person RPGs are annoying. If you can take more than one, then it probably still doesn't surpass your average RPG party size.

Classic D&D allowed you to hire a whole army of henchmen. Anything less than a dozen is simply regular party size. I'm talking about having squires along with you, dudes with donkeys and carts who transport your equipment, maybe even a couple of whores to keep your party company during camping! A proper entourage, like medieval knights would have - or do you think they carried all their armor alone? LOL

High level D&D characters could afford to hire dozens of henchmen, and it was intended for them to do so. Show me one computer RPG that lets you do that.

 

[mediocrepoet]

I respect the idea of implementing logistics, but as a player, I'm far too lazy to do anything beyond organizing my inventory. If I had to worry about logistics, I would just play a monk or a similar class that doesn't require any equipment (besides a few trinkets). Or I would just play on easy and use the shit starter equipment.

I think this is why the Scavenger Guild was a nice balance. Basically was the hirelings (they cart your shit back to town for a percentage) and you just pick up what you want to and leave the rest for them. They eventually get back to town and you double check to make sure you didn't miss anything you actually want.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Skyrim lets you do that too.

Skyrim lets you recruit 200 henchmen?
Last time I checked you could take one companion along with you, I never did because companions in first person RPGs are annoying. If you can take more than one, then it probably still doesn't surpass your average RPG party size.

Classic D&D allowed you to hire a whole army of henchmen. Anything less than a dozen is simply regular party size. I'm talking about having squires along with you, dudes with donkeys and carts who transport your equipment, maybe even a couple of whores to keep your party company during camping! A proper entourage, like medieval knights would have - or do you think they carried all their armor alone? LOL

High level D&D characters could afford to hire dozens of henchmen, and it was intended for them to do so. Show me one computer RPG that lets you do that.

My tabletop group never used henchmen. I always found it funny reading things like Knights of the Dinner Table where they'd drop torchbearers into their bag of holding or like use them to check for traps, etc.

 

[JarlFrank]

The henchmen are a pretty old concept at this point and is no longer a part of mainstream D&D, sadly, just like how most high level parties nowadays never transition to domain-level play.

 

[Butter]

A lot would be better if D&D went back its roots.

 

[jaekl]

Really it's not just collecting loot, there are lots of tasks that you should be able to pay mooks to do for you. The whole point of risking your life to get rich is so you don't have to work as hard. For example, you could hire therapists for your adventuring companions so they can unload their teen angst onto someone else for a change.

 

[Iucounu]

Classic D&D allowed you to hire a whole army of henchmen. Anything less than a dozen is simply regular party size. I'm talking about having squires along with you, dudes with donkeys and carts who transport your equipment, maybe even a couple of whores to keep your party company during camping! A proper entourage, like medieval knights would have - or do you think they carried all their armor alone? LOL

High level D&D characters could afford to hire dozens of henchmen, and it was intended for them to do so. Show me one computer RPG that lets you do that.

Now I was reminded of ARK Survival Evolved again: there you can indeed use dozens of dinosaurs to harvest resources, travel, fight and carry loot. I personally think tamed dinos are silly, but the mechanics are not bad.

I think the human slaves in Conan Exiles can at least do domestic work, maybe they can fight and carry loot too?

 

[JarlFrank]

Yeah that's true, Conan Exiles allows you to take slaves and make them work at your base, and also have them tag along on adventures to be your meatshields and help dish out some damage.

 

[mediocrepoet]

The henchmen are a pretty old concept at this point and is no longer a part of mainstream D&D, sadly, just like how most high level parties nowadays never transition to domain-level play.

Well, they stopped doing much with it after 1E and BECMI. Even 2E started getting away from henchmen in particular and strongholds were more of a footnote outside of the Birthright campaign setting.

 

[Poseidon00]

The amount of people i've seen say that they never completed BG3, or took many months to do so, tells me that it's not really a good game. We are just so starved for good RPGs we will take one that is unsatisfying but feels like it should not be. I never completed it and I can't be fucked to continue trying. It took a lot of effort just to start up again at the end of Chapter 2.

 

[Poseidon00]

The henchmen are a pretty old concept at this point and is no longer a part of mainstream D&D, sadly, just like how most high level parties nowadays never transition to domain-level play.

Well, they stopped doing much with it after 1E and BECMI. Even 2E started getting away from henchmen in particular and strongholds were more of a footnote outside of the Birthright campaign setting.

Strongholds were not a footnote in 2e, they were discussed right in the basic manuals, and they were so integral that BG2 made one of its biggest and most branching questlines out of it.

 

[mediocrepoet]

The henchmen are a pretty old concept at this point and is no longer a part of mainstream D&D, sadly, just like how most high level parties nowadays never transition to domain-level play.

Well, they stopped doing much with it after 1E and BECMI. Even 2E started getting away from henchmen in particular and strongholds were more of a footnote outside of the Birthright campaign setting.

Strongholds were not a footnote in 2e, they were discussed right in the basic manuals, and they were so integral that BG2 made one of its biggest and most branching questlines out of it.

By footnote I didn't mean splatbook so much as not overly central. This is all imo of course, basically our group didn't do much with it outside of Birthright. I suspect this had more to do with the types of campaign settings we played with and adventure themes than anything.

 

[JarlFrank]

1E still had the most wargaming-inspired rules in it, while 2E already moved away from it towards a more small party centered approach.
There is much in 1E that was never properly experimented with in CRPGs.

 

[adddeed]

Larian have made one good game, Divine Divnity. Rest is shit. Except possibly the sequel Divinity 2.
And Baldur's Gate 1 is the only BG game worth playing in the series.

 

[JarlFrank]

And Baldur's Gate 2 is the only BG game worth playing in the series.

Fixed.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Well, they stopped doing much with it after 1E and BECMI. Even 2E started getting away from henchmen in particular and strongholds were more of a footnote outside of the Birthright campaign setting.

The second entry in the DMGR Dungeon Master's Guide series was The Castle Guide, but it didn't bother providing any rules for dominion management in the style of the BECMI Companion Set. Did contain detailed rules for stronghold construction, though.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Well, they stopped doing much with it after 1E and BECMI. Even 2E started getting away from henchmen in particular and strongholds were more of a footnote outside of the Birthright campaign setting.

The second entry in the DMGR Dungeon Master's Guide series was The Castle Guide, but it didn't bother providing any rules for dominion management in the style of the BECMI Companion Set. Did contain detailed rules for stronghold construction, though.

I always figured strongholds were weird because they tended to be keeps, etc. that one character would have for themselves, but a group goes around together but as soon as you have overlapping character classes, they're going to exclude eachother (as opposed to being able to have say, a Lord's (named fighter) castle, the cleric's Temple and the mage's Tower, that are more feasibly put together. Either way, it shifts the game into more of a management or war game with adventuring between. Even if we had stuff backgrounded about that, the characters usually still had others they were sworn to, etc. and generally played some form of errants questing around.

All the stronghold and settling stuff was usually after group retirement / campaign ending. It's just too much of a change in the focus of things imo and it's always struck me as weird unless you're intending to retire as soon as you hit name level, assuming you survive that long.

 

[Imrahil]

The amount of people i've seen say that they never completed BG3, or took many months to do so, tells me that it's not really a good game. We are just so starved for good RPGs we will take one that is unsatisfying but feels like it should not be. I never completed it and I can't be fucked to continue trying. It took a lot of effort just to start up again at the end of Chapter 2.

It has an oddly high completion rate for a game, much less for a game as long as it is. I just finished it & got the "All's Well That Ends Well" achievement, which you get regardless of what ending you got, just that you finished it. 22.6% have that achievement. That's kinda ridiculously high for finishing a game, given the sheer # of players.

 

[Poseidon00]

Far more than Strongholds, I miss the unique interpersonal mechanics of each class. Druids had to engage in a duel with a rival Druid to attain the higher ranks beyond Great Druid (and to level past 13). There were only so many Druids of that power level that could exist at any one time, the land only had so much to give. Losing set you back a level. Every class had something like this. Fighters potentially had hordes of recruits to command, whereas Rangers kept only a small group of skilled assistants or magical animals. Later, the Ranger and his animals could share their protective effects. It all lended itself to easier roleplaying and steered you into thinking differently about your playstyle with each class.

 

[Iucounu]

The amount of people i've seen say that they never completed BG3, or took many months to do so, tells me that it's not really a good game. We are just so starved for good RPGs we will take one that is unsatisfying but feels like it should not be. I never completed it and I can't be fucked to continue trying. It took a lot of effort just to start up again at the end of Chapter 2.

It has an oddly high completion rate for a game, much less for a game as long as it is. I just finished it & got the "All's Well That Ends Well" achievement, which you get regardless of what ending you got, just that you finished it. 22.6% have that achievement. That's kinda ridiculously high for finishing a game, given the sheer # of players.

So even though BG3 has a 93-96% positive rating on Steam, only a fraction of these reviewers actually completed the game?

Sounds like they enjoyed the beginning, gave a premature positive rating and then didn't bother (or couldn't?) edit the rating once the later parts became bad/boring enough to give up.

 

[mediocrepoet]

The amount of people i've seen say that they never completed BG3, or took many months to do so, tells me that it's not really a good game. We are just so starved for good RPGs we will take one that is unsatisfying but feels like it should not be. I never completed it and I can't be fucked to continue trying. It took a lot of effort just to start up again at the end of Chapter 2.

It has an oddly high completion rate for a game, much less for a game as long as it is. I just finished it & got the "All's Well That Ends Well" achievement, which you get regardless of what ending you got, just that you finished it. 22.6% have that achievement. That's kinda ridiculously high for finishing a game, given the sheer # of players.

So even though BG3 has a 93-96% positive rating on Steam, only a fraction of these reviewers actually completed the game?

Sounds like they enjoyed the beginning, gave a premature positive rating and then didn't bother (or couldn't?) edit the rating once the later parts became bad/boring enough to give up.

Sounds like someone doesn't complete enough games to know that on average, no one completes anything.

 

[Imrahil]

Didn't I just say that?