Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Game News Baldur's Gate 3 now available on Early Access

Borian

Guest
Well, now I have been officially introduced into the absolute dumpster fire that is 5e. Is this really what they devolved the ruleset into or are Larian taking Autistic Liberties?

:what:

https://www.5esrd.com/
https://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules
Here are the rules so you can see for yourself.
Opinions: generally, 5e is easy to like. It's easier to learn than most rules yet I wouldn't say it makes too many compromises. On the scale of "weak and squishy human" to "level 1 demigod," 5e lies in the middle but more towards the latter - that also means people here will hate it; PCs aren't meant to die within a game played by the rulebook.
I'm an OSR hipster and dislike d20 so my opinion on it isn't worth much.
 

Poseidon00

Arcane
Joined
Dec 11, 2018
Messages
2,039
5E treats you like this is your first roleplaying session. You get to choose from a number of kits that can do basic shit you could easily build for and more in 3e or 2e. Nothing is too complicated. Forget worrying about things like "attack bonuses" or "damage", they have standardized it all. Everyone can be a "cool magic guy" in one way or another with no effort. Paladins can be any alignment and believe in anything. There are no alignments. Homosex is mandatory.
 

Dr Schultz

Augur
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
492
In Zelda you explore

What kind of exploration there is Zelda? From those I've played, it's just use the object required to clear the current obstacle and that's it


Ok, for the sake of argument, let's assume that a Legend of Zelda game is just a linear sequence of dungeons. How do you solve these dungeons? You go around, avoid being killed by environmental hazards and monsters, find hidden stuff, solve environmental puzzles with the tools at your disposal, figure out the dungeon layout and use this knowledge to solve the whole labyrinth (additionally you also find non mandatory goodies hidden here and there). Except for the "solve environmental puzzles" part this is pure exploration. But a Zelda game has also an overworld, which a) is densely packed with secrets b) can be explored in a non linear fashion c) usually needs to be understood as well in order to beat the game (given that it harbors some kind of overarching quest). Again, pure exploration...

And this model applies only to the "classic" Zeldas. The pre-classic (The Legend of Zelda I and II) and the post classic (A Link Between Worlds and Breath of the Wilds) are immensely more open and exploration focused...

For references (my favorite videogame channel on YouTube):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmOVS-qLG6o
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7sm-0nGV34
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmIgjAM0uh0
 
Last edited:

Dr Schultz

Augur
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
492
My issue with the "exploration" in the I.E. games is precisely this: It takes zero effort to clear the black spots of a prerendered painting, beautiful as it may be.
But it's a gamble [the first time]. You do not know what may be lurking there... and in a few cases there actually is a fairly powerful threat; more than one targeted ambush.

Effortless exploration is not bad; exploration without encounter is the only way that I could tolerate and somewhat enjoy playing FO3; I just had to avoid the awful (mood damaging) NPCs in that game. I wandered the wastes for what little appreciation of their work could be had from that game.

Poor mechanics is what's bad; good mechanics (all them Grotesque numbers ;) ) matter more than anything else in a game—they are the cake upon which the sugary icing levelly sits.

That's true, but the threat comes from the enemies. It's a combat challenge, not an exploration one.

Don't get me wrong, by the way: Some of my favorite exploration focused games are packed with quiet moments (Breath of the Wild or Outer Wilds for instance), but in these games the quiet moments are not everything the exploration has to offer.

If I had to summarize my thoughts about exploration in videogames, I'd say that you have good exploration when a game challenges you:
- by not making obvious where you need to go in order to progress or how to get there;
- by allowing you to get lost and find alternative routes;
- by requiring from you to understand the layout of a whole area (or even the whole world) in order to beat the game;
- by making the environment itself a threat;
- by delaying your progresses with obstacles that you need to neutralize;
- by hiding interesting secrets that requires work to be found;

BG I & II did very little of the above or did it sloppily (for instance by automatizing the process of finding traps/secret doors). The fun in these games comes entirely from the encounters. The wandering is an interlude between them. And I guess this is fine for some kind of players. Not for me, though...

Instead this is just DoS2 in Faerun which is all well and good but it shouldn't be called BG3 - let's be honest here.

This is impossible to deny, but I don't see it as an issue. Firstly because we've already got 3 carbon-copied BG games in the last few years (PoE I/II and Pathfinder: KM); secondly because 2 more clones are coming (Pathfinder: WoR and Black Geyser); thirdly because the I.E. formula in my humble opinion can be enhanced in many areas (and the exploration is one of these areas).
Most probably you will have your BG3 disguised as Pathfinder: WoR while Larian fans will have their D:OS III under the name of BG3.
 
Last edited:

Glop_dweller

Prophet
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
1,164
BG I & II did very little of the above or did it sloppily (for instance by automatizing the process of finding traps/secret doors). The fun in these games comes entirely from the encounters. The wandering is an interlude between them. And I guess this is fine for some kind of players. Not for me, though...
How exactly do you mean? If you mean via the PC's detection skill... This is an RPG series. The player is running a party of characters—it's them that are there in situ, detection of traps and concealment is up to their own personal ability to detect such (as it should be, in an RPG); not the ability of the player. The player is not a member of the party, and should have no tangible contribution... cannot warn them of anything, cannot heal them if they should all fall unconscious.

A cRPG is visually depicting what transpire(s/ed) in the moment, just as a DM/GM might verbally describe those situations. It is for the player to extrapolate what those characters would do, not to do it for them.
 
Last edited:

Enkidu

Novice
Joined
Feb 19, 2016
Messages
33
Well, now I have been officially introduced into the absolute dumpster fire that is 5e. Is this really what they devolved the ruleset into or are Larian taking Autistic Liberties?

:what:
Its an autistic larianesque(?) 5e. Solasta is a lot more faithful systemwise despite not having the license of the setting.
 

Dr Schultz

Augur
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
492
BG I & II did very little of the above or did it sloppily (for instance by automatizing the process of finding traps/secret doors). The fun in these games comes entirely from the encounters. The wandering is an interlude between them. And I guess this is fine for some kind of players. Not for me, though...
How exactly do you mean? If you mean via the PC's detection skill... This is an RPG series. The player is running a party of characters—it's them that are there in situ, detection of traps and concealment is up to their own personal ability to detect such (as it should be, in an RPG); not the ability of the player. The player is not a member of the party, and should have no tangible contribution... cannot warn them of anything, cannot heal them if they should all fall unconscious.

During a combat encounter the player is not part of the party either, but he/she is still in charge of making all the tactical decisions, which is why combat is fun or at least may be fun.
Detection checks are one of the many reasons why exploration isn't fun in BG (not remotely the only one). They are a necessity in tabletop RPGs, an hindrance in CRPGs.
We have all played and enjoyed Ultima Underworld and Arx Fatalis here, I suppose. Any doubt they are full fledged RPGs even without detection checks?
Over the years, I've realized that the assumption that outside of combat everything must relies on the character stats usually brings to bad gameplay (outside of combat).
If I had to pick a series that have found the sweet spot between player agency and character stats outside of combat, this series would be Quest for Glory.
 
Last edited:

V_K

Arcane
Joined
Nov 3, 2013
Messages
7,714
Location
at a Nowhere near you
Arx actually does detection checks, just in a balanced way - a success highlights that a part of the scenery is special but doesn't tell you what to do with it.
 

Tyrr

Liturgist
Joined
Jun 25, 2020
Messages
2,257
5E treats you like this is your first roleplaying session. You get to choose from a number of kits that can do basic shit you could easily build for and more in 3e or 2e. Nothing is too complicated. Forget worrying about things like "attack bonuses" or "damage", they have standardized it all. Everyone can be a "cool magic guy" in one way or another with no effort. Paladins can be any alignment and believe in anything. There are no alignments. Homosex is mandatory.
This is what happens when you get sloppy with the gatekeeping.
 

Dr Schultz

Augur
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
492
Arx actually does detection checks, just in a balanced way - a success highlights that a part of the scenery is special but doesn't tell you what to do with it.


Yes, now that you mentioned it, that's true. Intuition in AF helps you to find hidden stuff, but it doesn't prevent you from finding said stuff by yourself.
 

Glop_dweller

Prophet
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
1,164
During a combat encounter the player is not part of the party either, but he/she is still in charge of making all the tactical decisions, which is way combat is fun or at least may be fun.
Detection checks are one of the many reasons why exploration isn't fun in BG (not remotely the only one). They are a necessity in tabletop RPGs, an hindrance in CRPGs.
Not at all; it's a core feature. I would not take any RPG seriously that was not bound by the PCs limitations.

Over the years, I've realized that the assumption that outside of combat everything must relies on the character stats usually brings to bad gameplay (outside of combat).
In combat, with Baldur's Gate and Fallout both, for instance, the player (as stated previously) extrapolates who the character's target would be, but it is the PC who then does their best to attack—and possibly fail; the character does the aiming; their stats influence the quality of their actions. The player cannot advise them to shoot more accurately, or to move faster. This is at it should be for any RPG.

I liked that the BG series even takes Infravision into account, where it's only available to the player when the active character possesses it; (quite a shame that someone on the team made it a toggle to disregard this).

We have all played and enjoyed Ultima Underworld and Arx Fatalis here, I suppose. Any doubt they are full fledged RPGs even without detection checks?
Not everyone has played those two titles. Arx manages to be a great RPG despite its first person handicap. The skills of the game do matter, and affect everything (including combat skills). FPP is generally detrimental to roleplaying games, because it actively substitutes the player for the PC... it then skirts the realm of reactive simulation.

Arx suffers the same problem as Witcher 2 (though Witcher 1 does not), that of the player hindrance. Geralt is an experienced swordsman, but the naive combat of the 2nd & 3rd games allow the player's [un]familiarity and playing skill to determine Geralt's minute actions; which means that he swings wildly at trees, barrels, perhaps where the enemy used to be, or at nothing in particular... until the player masters a level of control. This is out of character for a veteran monster hunter, and lets Geralt be defeated by common villagers.

RPGs should do the exact opposite of this. It's why one would roleplay a character like Bruce Lee—because of his martial arts skill; he would know better how to attack, than the player could. But imagine playing with entirely manual control over his movements; the player's mistakes become his, and the reverse... if the player were better, then he would be fighting better than he ought to be able. With Baldur's Gate and Fallout (for example), the PC actions are not hamstrung by the player; the PC handles them to the best of their own ability.

(It is the case in FO3, that the player can compensate for the PCs inability to aim; making shots they shouldn't be able to manage. :( )
 
Last edited:

Immortal

Arcane
In My Safe Space
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
5,062
Location
Safe Space - Don't Bulli
Only on the Codex can you see people complaining that something became less of a convoluted clusterfuck.

This is a pretty shit take that we see anytime something is dumbed down - always the "Grognard Tinted Glasses for dated shitty systems" hand wave.

In reality though.. that's really not the case.
For example, 2E went to 3E and they dumped THAC0 - grogboiz were celebrating from the rooftops. -That- was a removal of clusterfuckness.

3.5E to 5E however.. Shitting over skillpoints and feats.. it's sorta like.. New Vegas to Fallout 4 if I think about it.
Just dumb down everything so mouth breathers can understand it without having to read or do math - whilst ruining the fun of complex murder hobo builds for the rest of us.

(I wonder why pathfinder is a thing and why it exploded popularity after WOTC shit over everything in 4E? Really gets the noggin jogging)
 
Last edited:

Dr Schultz

Augur
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
492
During a combat encounter the player is not part of the party either, but he/she is still in charge of making all the tactical decisions, which is way combat is fun or at least may be fun.

Detection checks are one of the many reasons why exploration isn't fun in BG (not remotely the only one). They are a necessity in tabletop RPGs, an hindrance in CRPGs.
Not at all; It's a core feature. I would not take any RPG seriously that was not bound by the PCs limitations.

Over the years, I've realized that the assumption that outside of combat everything must relies on the character stats usually brings to bad gameplay (outside of combat).
In combat, with Baldur's Gate and Fallout both, for instance, the player (as stated previously) extrapolates who the character's target would be, but it is the PC who then does their best to attack—and possibly fail; the character does the aiming; their stats influence the quality of their actions. The player cannot advise them to shoot more accurately, or to move faster. This is at it should be for any RPG.

I liked that the BG series even takes Infravision into account, where it's only available to the player when the active character possesses it; (quite a shame that someone on the team made it a toggle to disregard this).

We have all played and enjoyed Ultima Underworld and Arx Fatalis here, I suppose. Any doubt they are full fledged RPGs even without detection checks?
Not everyone has played those two titles. Arx manages to be a great RPG despite its first person handicap. The skills of the game do matter, and affect everything (including combat skills). FPP is generally detrimental to roleplaying games, because it actively substitutes the player for the PC... it then skirts the realm of reactive simulation.

Arx suffers the same problem as Witcher 2 (though Witcher 1 does not), that of the player hindrance. Geralt is an experienced swordsman, but the naive combat of the 2nd & 3rd games allow the player's [un]familiarity and playing skill to determine Geralt's minute actions; which means that he swings wildly at trees, barrels, perhaps where the enemy used to be, or at nothing in particular... until the player masters a level of control. This is out of character for a veteran monster hunter, and lets Geralt be defeated by common villagers.

RPGs should do the exact opposite of this. It's why one would roleplay a character like Bruce Lee—because of his martial arts skill; he would know better how to attack, than the player could. But imagine playing with entirely manual control over his movements; the player's mistakes become his, and the reverse... if the player were better, then he would be fighting better than he ought to be able.

(This is the case in FO3, where the player can compensate for the PCs inability to aim; making shots they shouldn't be able to manage. :( )

Sorry but you are minimizing the role of the player in combat in order to sustain your thesis.

The player is the one who picks the target (bad guy a, b, c) the weapon (sword, mace, pistol, shotgun), the spell (fireball or sleep), the item (invisible potion or healing scroll) the type of attack (fast, medium, strong) and even the body part in Fallout. In BG much of the rest multiplied by 6. All the sensible decisions are up to the player and this is the reason why combat is fun in RPGs. Compare athis to the removal of traps in BG: your thief either sees or not sees a trap, is either able or unable to remove it. And that's it. No decision making whatsoever for the player. So no fun...
To be even more clear: In order to have the same lack of agency you're advocating for the non combat part of a game in its combat part, battles should be auto-resolved by character stats. Would you enjoy an RPG like this? I definitely wouldn't.

And if you are thinking to the argument: "this is how tabletop RPGs work; this is how CRPGs should work", I'm 37, I've played and run campaigns with many different systems. I know exactly how tabletop RPGs work, but I'm also aware that, due to the widely different nature of the media involved, some mechanics are bound to be "lost in translation". So, better change them altogether instead of adapting them with detrimental results.
 
Last edited:

Immortal

Arcane
In My Safe Space
Joined
Sep 13, 2014
Messages
5,062
Location
Safe Space - Don't Bulli
Most probably you will have your BG3 disguised as Pathfinder: WoR while Larian fans will have their D:OS III under the name of BG3.

This is probably true - I still would of liked to see Larian's spin on Baldur's Gate 3, maybe fully equipped with NWN style tools for making adventures.
That had me more hyped then another DoS2 in Faerun.

At this point it's just become a formula for them. I would of expected more from Swen & folk.

Thinking about it, I wouldn't even compare this game style to Ultima - the whole "You can't backtrack after this" 4 Act nature their games are taking on. It feels so artificial. Like they just hand you 4 mini-sandboxes to fuck around with instead of a true exploration game. It makes the game feel far more linear and "on-tracks" I think.

TL;DR - I'll still enjoy the game but they could of took a little more risk and played around with a new design format if they were gonna call it BG3. Why not Dark Alliance 5 : Squid Bugaloo?

I do agree with your statement though.
 

Glop_dweller

Prophet
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
1,164
Sorry but you are minimizing the role of the player in combat in order to sustain your thesis.
The player doesn't have a role. ;)

The player is the one who picks the target (bad guy a, b, c) the weapon (sword, mace, pistol, shotgun), the spell (fireball or sleep), the item (invisible potion or healing scroll) the type of attack (fast, medium, strong) and even the body part in Fallout.
And yet... these are all options available to the PC in the moment. The player should be roleplaying the PC during combat, and effecting their probable actions.

For instance... Take Fallout: If the PC was engaged by a few opponents and Dogmeat was fighting some distance [many hex] away, and just got kicked unconscious... would the PC abandon their close quarter gun fight to go [physically] beat the hell out of the dude who just kicked his dog? Would Dogmeat's being alive or dead at the time make a difference—to them? Would he think shooting them from a distance was not enough? Would they ignore incoming attacks so long as they got to strike the dude in the groin with a sledgehammer, for kicking his dog? Or would they be pragmatic and level headed about it, and systematically eliminate their opponents one by one according to the greatest threat first? (...and allowing the dude to get away with it.)

mentality.jpg

Depends on the mentality of the character, no?

In BG much of the rest multiplied by 6. All the sensible decisions are up to the player and this is the reason why combat is fun in RPGs.
That is very subjective. Tell me... When playing Baldur's Gate, if you had a thief in the party would they case and rob the Inns? If yes, did your Paladin (or whole party) tag along to protect the thief (and win any battles against the victims) ?

Compare all this to the removal of traps in BG: your thief either sees or not sees a trap, is either able or unable to remove it. And that's it. No decision making whatsoever for the player.
To be even more clear: In order to have the same lack of agency you're advocating for the non combat part of a game in its combat part, battles should be auto-resolved by character stats.
Ideally yes, and there are plenty of games that offer an auto-resolve for combat, but the limitation here is with the developers, and the scope of their design. They cannot account for all of the dynamic possibilities, and on-the-fly decision changes. What auto-combat system would cancel a decided action in favor of another based on the changing situation. (In BG/NWN, the combatants have their own internal round clock —under the hood—, and they act whenever their option arises; many of the displayed (interim) attacks are fake, only the real ones do damage.)

No, the combatants would be evaluated by the numbers, bereft of all context. As for enjoying it—sure. That is the way combat in Wasteland, and Bard's Tale both worked.

And if you are thinking to the argument: "this is how tabletop RPGs work; this is how CRPGs should work", I'm 37, I've played and run campaigns with many different systems. I know exactly how tabletop RPGs work, but I'm also aware that, due to the widely different nature of the media involved, some mechanics are bound to be "lost in translation". So, better change them altogether instead of adapting them with detrimental results.
It's not so much lost in translation, as omitted for sloth or lack of time, or funds. A computer roleplaying game could take everything into account if they wished. The game could determine a missed attack not by random roll, but by actual collision event with a small stone in the path of the attacker's footfall; it all depends upon how deep they want to dive into it. It could be shown; animated. The PC could miss, and be shown to stumble on the rock—but it would not necessarily have to; they could just use it internally instead of randomized success... Most players wouldn't notice or care, but the results might be marginally more realistic in the long run. Modern players freak out when their character's miss—seemingly at random; especially if shown 95%—'cause they assume that it can't happen twice in a row. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
Sorry but you are minimizing the role of the player in combat in order to sustain your thesis.
The player doesn't have a role. ;)

The player is the one who picks the target (bad guy a, b, c) the weapon (sword, mace, pistol, shotgun), the spell (fireball or sleep), the item (invisible potion or healing scroll) the type of attack (fast, medium, strong) and even the body part in Fallout.
And yet... these are all options available to the PC in the moment. The player should be roleplaying the PC during combat, and effecting their probable actions.

For instance... Take Fallout: If the PC was engaged by a few opponents and Dogmeat was fighting some distance [many hex] away, and just got kicked unconscious... would the PC abandon their close quarter gun fight to go [physically] beat the hell out of the dude who just kicked his dog? Would Dogmeat's being alive or dead at the time make a difference—to them? Would he think shooting them from a distance was not enough? Would they ignore incoming attacks so long as they got to strike the dude in the groin with a sledgehammer, for kicking his dog? Or would they be pragmatic and level headed about it, and systematically eliminate their opponents one by one according to the greatest threat first? (...and allowing the dude to get away with it.)

mentality.jpg

Depends on the mentality of the character, no?

In BG much of the rest multiplied by 6. All the sensible decisions are up to the player and this is the reason why combat is fun in RPGs.
That is very subjective. Tell me... When playing Baldur's Gate, if you had a thief in the party would they case and rob the Inns? If yes, did your Paladin (or whole party) tag along to protect the thief (and win any battles against the victims) ?

Compare all this to the removal of traps in BG: your thief either sees or not sees a trap, is either able or unable to remove it. And that's it. No decision making whatsoever for the player.
To be even more clear: In order to have the same lack of agency you're advocating for the non combat part of a game in its combat part, battles should be auto-resolved by character stats.
Ideally yes, and there are plenty of games that offer an auto-resolve for combat, but the limitation here is with the developers, and the scope of their design. They cannot account for all of the dynamic possibilities, and on-the-fly decision changes. What auto-combat system would cancel a decided action in favor of another based on the changing situation. (In BG/NWN, the combatants have their own internal round clock —under the hood—, and they act whenever their option arises; many of the displayed (interim) attacks are fake, only the real ones do damage.)

No, the combatants would be evaluated by the numbers, bereft of all context. As for enjoying it—sure. That is the way combat in Wasteland, and Bard's Tale both worked.

And if you are thinking to the argument: "this is how tabletop RPGs work; this is how CRPGs should work", I'm 37, I've played and run campaigns with many different systems. I know exactly how tabletop RPGs work, but I'm also aware that, due to the widely different nature of the media involved, some mechanics are bound to be "lost in translation". So, better change them altogether instead of adapting them with detrimental results.
It's not so much lost in translation, as omitted for sloth or lack of time, or funds. A computer roleplaying game could take everything into account if they wished. The game could determine a missed attack not by random roll, but by actual collision event with a small stone in the path of the attacker's footfall; it all depends upon how deep they want to dive into it. It could be shown; animated. The PC could miss, and be shown to stumble on the rock—but it would not necessarily have to; they could just use it internally instead of randomized success... Most players wouldn't notice or care, but the results might be marginally more realistic in the long run. Modern players freak out when their character's miss—seemingly at random; especially if shown 95%—'cause they assume that it can't happen twice in a row. :lol:
This is one of the many reasons as to why I consider Fallout to be the best representation of an RPG in digital form. You and the Vault Dweller are one, you are roleplaying as the Vault Dweller.
Full party control is great for tactical combat, but it also sacrifices roleplaying.
 

Dr Schultz

Augur
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
492
Sorry but you are minimizing the role of the player in combat in order to sustain your thesis.
The player doesn't have a role. ;)

The player is the one who picks the target (bad guy a, b, c) the weapon (sword, mace, pistol, shotgun), the spell (fireball or sleep), the item (invisible potion or healing scroll) the type of attack (fast, medium, strong) and even the body part in Fallout.
And yet... these are all options available to the PC in the moment. The player should be roleplaying the PC during combat, and effecting their probable actions.

For instance... Take Fallout: If the PC was engaged by a few opponents and Dogmeat was fighting some distance [many hex] away, and just got kicked unconscious... would the PC abandon their close quarter gun fight to go [physically] beat the hell out of the dude who just kicked his dog? Would Dogmeat's being alive or dead at the time make a difference—to them? Would he think shooting them from a distance was not enough? Would they ignore incoming attacks so long as they got to strike the dude in the groin with a sledgehammer, for kicking his dog? Or would they be pragmatic and level headed about it, and systematically eliminate their opponents one by one according to the greatest threat first? (...and allowing the dude to get away with it.)

mentality.jpg

Depends on the mentality of the character, no?

In BG much of the rest multiplied by 6. All the sensible decisions are up to the player and this is the reason why combat is fun in RPGs.
That is very subjective. Tell me... When playing Baldur's Gate, if you had a thief in the party would they case and rob the Inns? If yes, did your Paladin (or whole party) tag along to protect the thief (and win any battles against the victims) ?

Compare all this to the removal of traps in BG: your thief either sees or not sees a trap, is either able or unable to remove it. And that's it. No decision making whatsoever for the player.
To be even more clear: In order to have the same lack of agency you're advocating for the non combat part of a game in its combat part, battles should be auto-resolved by character stats.
Ideally yes, and there are plenty of games that offer an auto-resolve for combat, but the limitation here is with the developers, and the scope of their design. They cannot account for all of the dynamic possibilities, and on-the-fly decision changes. What auto-combat system would cancel a decided action in favor of another based on the changing situation. (In BG/NWN, the combatants have their own internal round clock —under the hood—, and they act whenever their option arises; many of the displayed (interim) attacks are fake, only the real ones do damage.)

No the combatants would be evaluated by the numbers, bereft of all context. As for enjoying it—sure. That is the way combat in Wasteland, and Bard's Tale both worked.

And if you are thinking to the argument: "this is how tabletop RPGs work; this is how CRPGs should work", I'm 37, I've played and run campaigns with many different systems. I know exactly how tabletop RPGs work, but I'm also aware that, due to the widely different nature of the media involved, some mechanics are bound to be "lost in translation". So, better change them altogether instead of adapting them with detrimental results.
It's not so much lost in translation, as omitted for sloth or lack of funds. A computer roleplaying game could take everything into account if they wished. The game could determine a missed attack not by random roll, but by actual collision event with a small stone in the path of the attacker's footfall; it all depends upon how deep they want to dive into it. It could be shown; animated. The PC could miss, and be shown to stumble on the rock—but it would not necessarily have to; they could just use it internally instead of randomized success... Most players wouldn't notice or care, but the results might be marginally more realistic in the long run.

OK, Let me take another angle in order to show how distant you are from the actual process of designing a CPRG.

Major differences between Baldur's Gate gameplay and an AD&D session (short and incomplete list):

1- In AD&D you roleplay a single character. In BG you control a party of maximum 6 characters.
2- AD&D is inherently multiplayer. BG is not (I know that technically you can play it multiplayer, but in reality it's borderline unfaceable).
3- AD&D is an open-ended sandbox where you can use spells, skills and items to interact with anything you want. In BG non-combat interactions are basically non-existent.
4- In AD&D you say whatever you want to any NPC or party member that understand you. In BG you are forced to pick your line from a small pool of premade options.
5- AD&D combat is turn based. BG combat is in real time with pause.
6- During an AD&D campaign you are supposed to fight a reasonable number of opponents, like in a fantasy movie or novel. BG is a game where you spend most of your time fighting.

And these are only the most striking differences, the game-changing ones. There are also tons of minor differences that nowadays we take for granted: In BG character progression is incredibly fast, you can carry an insane amount of stuff, you don't need to eat or drink, you can't ride horses or other animals, you can't swim, a lot of spells works differently than their tabletop counterparts, a lot were just removed, etc...). Changing how detection works would have been only one insignificant difference more, and it would have been for the better.

Now, I could continue forever listing the reasons why the gameplay of BG has nothing to do with the gameplay of AD&D. Point is, who cares as long as the game is fun to play? Some of these changes where made for technical limitations or development constraints, others because the designers sincerely believed it was for the good of their game. Some of them worked out fine, some didn't.

Given that combat is fun in BG but the rest is not, let's change the rest... Is that simple.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
1- In AD&D you roleplay a single character. In BG you control a party of maximum 6 characters.
2- AD&D is inherently multiplayer. BG is not (I know that technically you can play it multiplayer, but in reality it's borderline unfaceable)
Your companions are supposed to represent the other player characters which is the argument against full party control.
 

Dr Schultz

Augur
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
492
1- In AD&D you roleplay a single character. In BG you control a party of maximum 6 characters.
2- AD&D is inherently multiplayer. BG is not (I know that technically you can play it multiplayer, but in reality it's borderline unfaceable)
Your companions are supposed to represent the other player characters which is the argument against full party control.

No doubt that controlling a single character makes for a more faithful roleplaying experience. On the flip side, controlling a party of characters makes for a better tactical combat (and yes, I've played both Age of Decadence and Underrail and I'm still 100% positive about that).
It's a trade off...
 

Glop_dweller

Prophet
Joined
Sep 29, 2007
Messages
1,164
1- In AD&D you roleplay a single character. In BG you control a party of maximum 6 characters.
2- AD&D is inherently multiplayer. BG is not (I know that technically you can play it multiplayer, but in reality it's borderline unfaceable).
3- AD&D is an open-ended sandbox where you can use spells, skills and items to interact with anything you want. In BG non-combat interactions are basically non-existent.
4- In AD&D you say whatever you want to any NPC or party member that understand you. In BG you are forced to pick your line from a small pool of premade options.
5- AD&D combat is turn based. BG combat is in real time with pause.
6- During an AD&D campaign you are supposed to fight a reasonable number of opponents, like in a fantasy movie or novel. BG is a game where you spend most of your time fighting.
1- ...is simply not true; one can roleplay more than one character at a time.

2- ...I tended to only play BG in multiplayer; this allows for having more than one custom character. I'd usually leave two slots empty for recruited party members. Also, there are many AD&D modules for one player.
( eg: http://retrorpglibrary.blogspot.com/2011/10/ad-2nd-edition-solo-adventures.html )

There was even originally a solo adventure for one person.

3- !? What game did you play? The PC interacts in every conversation, and this includes conversing with one's own party members. Planescape did this quite a bit as well. Or what exactly do you mean by 'non-combat interactions'?

4- ...and that's just fine if it's reasonably close to what your PC would say; it's also just fine if the gist/outcome is what your PC would want, because the player can actually ignore the text, and assume whatever wording they wish, if the outcome is close enough. Lastly I'd say it is fine because the developer only supports what they want to as an outcome, so it wouldn't matter what the PC said, if it was not something they would allow in the game. (Whether or not in a cRPG, or in PnP.)

5- No it's not; well... yes & no. It's certainly realtime w/ pause, but not in the way expected; not like (for instance) Myth:TFL is.
I mentioned before, if you recall, in implementing the system the developers give each combatant an internal round timer that holds them to their listed attacks per round; they only attack, use items, or cast spells when their time to act comes around. This is why there is a delay between actions and the user clicks that select them; also the linear combat log should make this clear.

Also.... What do you think turn based is?—it's not for sake of the delay. In turn based combat the player(s) are afforded the foreknowledge of what has happened in the round (and each turn) before they decide what to do for their own turn; this is not always possible in realtime combat. But it is in Baldur's Gate, because the player can stop the action and inspect the screen and the combat log at anytime.

In BG 1&2 the player can not only pause the event at every action, but can even set the game to auto-pause on many significant events.

Baldur_options.jpg


And these are only the most striking differences, the game-changing ones. There are also tons of minor differences that nowadays we take for granted: In BG character progression is incredibly fast, you can carry an insane amount of stuff, you don't need to eat or drink, you can't ride horses or other animals, you can't swim, a lot of spells works differently than their tabletop counterparts, a lot were just removed, etc...).
...And these are relevant to what [exactly]?

Changing how detection works in the game would have been only one of these many insignificant differences, and it would have been for the better.
No. It would have substituted the character's perception for the player's. Aside from no longer having the character handle their own perception, it would force the player to rely on their own—and so foremost they would never be roleplaying a character less perceptive than themselves, and if their own vision is poor, never a character more perceptive than themselves.

"Legolas! What do your elf eyes see?"
 
Last edited:

Dr Schultz

Augur
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
492
1- In AD&D you roleplay a single character. In BG you control a party of maximum 6 characters.
2- AD&D is inherently multiplayer. BG is not (I know that technically you can play it multiplayer, but in reality it's borderline unfaceable).
3- AD&D is an open-ended sandbox where you can use spells, skills and items to interact with anything you want. In BG non-combat interactions are basically non-existent.
4- In AD&D you say whatever you want to any NPC or party member that understand you. In BG you are forced to pick your line from a small pool of premade options.
5- AD&D combat is turn based. BG combat is in real time with pause.
6- During an AD&D campaign you are supposed to fight a reasonable number of opponents, like in a fantasy movie or novel. BG is a game where you spend most of your time fighting.
1- ...is simply not true; one can roleplay more than one character at a time.
Sorry man, but this is true in any possibile reality. You can theoretically roleplay an entire army, but it is not how AD&D (or any other P&P system, for that matter) works: if you are not the DM, in AD&D 1 player = 1 character; in BG 1 player = 1 to 6 characters. Totally different game experiences.

2- ...I tended to only play BG in multiplayer; this allows for having more than one custom character. I'd usually leave two slots empty for recruited party members. Also, there are many modules for one player.
( eg: http://retrorpglibrary.blogspot.com/2011/10/ad-2nd-edition-solo-adventures.html )

There was even originally a solo adventure for one person.
And still, BG is a game intended to be played as a single-player party-based RPG, which - in tabletop terms - is two times an oxymoron.

3- !? What game did you play? The PC interacts in every conversation, and this includes conversing with one's own party members. Planescape did this quite a bit as well. Or what exactly do you mean by 'non-combat interactions'?
I've treated the dialogues in a different point. For lack of better definitions "non-combat interactions are actions that in tabletop RPGs are the norm but in a CPRGs are so rare that many CPRG veterans with zero experience at the table don't even know they exist" :D.
I'm talking about stuff like casting a levitation spell in order to cross a magma pool, poisoning the food of a enemy, burning a stable with a torch in order to attract the guards attention, etc... The infinite pool of actions that you can perform in AD&D but you can't in BG...

4- ...and that's just fine if it's reasonably close to what your PC would say; it's also just fine if the gist/outcome is what your PC would want, because the player can actually ignore the text, and assume whatever wording they wish, if the outcome is close enough.
Lastly it is fine because the developer only supports what they want to as an outcome, so it wouldn't matter what the PC said, if it was not something they would allow in the game.
Not remotely close to what happens at the table. In a P&P RPG I'm allowed to say literally everything I want. In BG I don't have even 1/1,000,000 of the options necessary to do that.

5- No it's not. I mentioned this before, if you recall. In implementing the system, the developers give each combatant an internal round timer that holds them to their listed attacks per round; they only attack, use items, or cast spells when their time to act comes around. This is why there is a delay between actions and the user clicks that select them; also the combat log should make this clear.

Also.... What do you think turn based is?—it's not for sake of the delay. In turn based combat the player(s) are afforded the foreknowledge of what has happened in the round before their turn—before they decide what to do; this is not always possible in realtime combat. But it is in Baldur's Gate, because the player can stop the action and inspect the screen and the combat log at anytime.

In BG 1&2 the player can not only pause the event at every action, but can even set the game to pause on every round.

Baldur_options.jpg

Yes, the round framework is still there (well known fact) but the turn order is not, no matter how you tell the story. In a turn based system you can't move while other characters are performing an action nor you can choose what to do or where to go during another character turn (readied actions aside). Having a round structure doesn't make BG a turn based game.

And these are only the most striking differences, the game-changing ones. There are also tons of minor differences that nowadays we take for granted: In BG character progression is incredibly fast, you can carry an insane amount of stuff, you don't need to eat or drink, you can't ride horses or other animals, you can't swim, a lot of spells works differently than their tabletop counterparts, a lot were just removed, etc...).
..And these are relevant to what?
These are unfaithful adaptations of the ruleset as well. The only difference with the detection is that you are so used to them that you don't even noticed their existence.

Changing how detection works in the game would have been only one of these many insignificant differences, and it would have been for the better.
No. It would have substituted the player's perception for the player's. Aside from no longer having the character handle their own perception, it would force the player to rely on their own—and so foremost they would never be roleplaying a character less perceptive than themselves, and if their own vision is poor, never a character more perceptive than themselves.
If would have been like substituting the tactical thinking of the player to the tactical thinking of the party leader, then. What a horrible thing to do :D...
 
Last edited:

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom