Baldur's Gate Baldur's Gate 3 Pre-Release Thread [EARLY ACCESS RELEASED, GO TO NEW THREAD]

[DalekFlay]

Its just that emotional addicts to "feel good" vibes like DalekFlay cant accept anything that isnt supporting their addiction except as its direct opposite. So you always get those posters bitching about anything that is in any way not positive or at least not completely neutral as if its complete insane negativity.

Hahaha, only on the Codex would my "hey a few modern games here and there are good" and "we literally know nothing about this game yet, stop assuming shit" comments be called a "feel good addiction."

 

[Sherry]

Hi.

gosh. Gosh! GOSH!

Welcome back, Lilura!

Thanks,
Sherry

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Not one of you neckbeards has suggested a single rule change between 1st ed. and 2nd ed. that the Avatar trilogy was written to explain away in a direct or indirect way.

The assassin class was introduced into D&D in Supplement II: Blackmoor by Dave Arneson, distinct from the thief class introduced by Gary Gygax's Supplement I: Greyhawk, and continued as a separate class in AD&D 1st edition, but it was eliminated as a separate class in AD&D 2nd edition.

Yes, and that's not a rule change and has nothing to do with Bhaal's death, Bane and Myrkul were also killed, remember? Assassin is a sub-class available as an option in 2nd. ed. and the gods of FR do not represent character classes regardless.

Are you seriously asserting that the removal of a class from the AD&D 2nd edition --- a class that had existed since 1975 --- did not constitute a rules change? As for the notion of assassins being a sub-class available as an option, this was not true of AD&D 2nd edition; at most, there was an assassin "kit" included amongst 18 such kits for thieves in The Complete Thief's Handbook, i.e. an optional part of an optional accessory.

In fact, as you should know, character classes and races are setting specific in 1st and 2nd edition AD&D. Changes in core rules don't affect AD&D settings up to 2nd ed. at least. Core rule books did not dictate settings.

Greyhawk and The Forgotten Realms were both intended to be default campaign settings, with minimal differences from the core rulebooks. To quote Jeff Grubb from Dragon Magazine #153 (January 1990): "“Of course, there'’s more,” I continued. “A lot of little things changed with the appearance of the AD&D 2nd Edition game, such as the nature of spell lists and the official introduction of proficiencies and ability checks. The FORGOTTEN REALMS setting is TSR'’s official AD&D 2nd Edition world. In showing how we made the switch to the AD&D 2nd Edition game, we show all the other DMs how to make the transition, both for their own worlds and for the Realms.”"

Or to quote from the end of FRE3 Waterdeep: "Now the purpose of the Avatar storyline becomes clear: It provides a golden opportunity for DMs to change from the original AD&D® game to the AD&D 2nd Edition rules."

 

[Delterius]

even fucking lilura comes back from the dead reaching towards a nice and well adjusted life only to find out bg3 is skyrim

rip

 

[Infinitron]

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Hahaha, only on the Codex would my "hey a few modern games here and there are good" and "we literally know nothing about this game yet, stop assuming shit" comments be called a "feel good addiction."

No, of course not. But that comment of yours IS.
And thats how you show you cant find the way out of that psychosis.

evidence 1:

"hey a few modern games here and there are good"

Nobody mentioned that at all, and most of us enjoy one or the other modern game for what they are. From shooters to RTSs to adventures to whatever the fuck is out there.
So, thats a obvious strawman fallacy - which shows you cant understand or properly form an actual real argument.

evidence 2:

"we literally know nothing about this game yet, stop assuming shit"

Thats a obvious lie, or you are that magnificently retarded. Because we LITERALLY do know something about the game, and we do actually and literally know what wasn't revealed although those are the very basics and foundations of the genre and those specific games...

While only a rare few are actually assuming "shit" specifically.

See? You are demonstrably deranged and should be institutionalized, along Tuco and few others. And i proved that with your own words, not by fallacies, over exaggeration or by lying about anything.

 

[onemananadhisdroid]

It's going to be Oblivion -- without guns.

 

[Fairfax]

As evidenced by KotOR, D&D and action combat just don't go together well at all. It's both a clusterfuck and a snoozefest where you're watching your character play animations while you issue a command every 5 seconds maybe and see numbers pop up.

KOTOR was just turn-based combat using Star Wars d20. D&D and action combat can work just fine (see Dragon's Dogma), though it obviously can't be faithful.

 

[Sentinel]

As evidenced by KotOR, D&D and action combat just don't go together well at all. It's both a clusterfuck and a snoozefest where you're watching your character play animations while you issue a command every 5 seconds maybe and see numbers pop up.

KOTOR was just turn-based combat using Star Wars d20. D&D and action combat can work just fine (see Dragon's Dogma), though it obviously can't be faithful.

Yeah I know that KotOR has the turns playing out in the background, but when I say D&D i mean actually obeying the D&D ruleset somewhat. You're the first person I see that considers Dragon's Dogma a D&D game.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

They are all turned into Action RPGs by such approach, because it lowers the character stats influence on the gameplay and increases the player skills influence.

 

[Fairfax]

As evidenced by KotOR, D&D and action combat just don't go together well at all. It's both a clusterfuck and a snoozefest where you're watching your character play animations while you issue a command every 5 seconds maybe and see numbers pop up.

KOTOR was just turn-based combat using Star Wars d20. D&D and action combat can work just fine (see Dragon's Dogma), though it obviously can't be faithful.

Yeah I know that KotOR has the turns playing out in the background, but when I say D&D i mean actually obeying the D&D ruleset somewhat. You're the first person I see that considers Dragon's Dogma a D&D game.

It isn't, of course. What I meant is that Dragon's Dogma is a good example of how a good ARPG using D&D content could be done. If you meant ruleset adaptations, I don't see how KOTOR proves anything one way or another, not to mention most editions are entirely different games.

 

[santino27]

As evidenced by KotOR, D&D and action combat just don't go together well at all. It's both a clusterfuck and a snoozefest where you're watching your character play animations while you issue a command every 5 seconds maybe and see numbers pop up.

KOTOR was just turn-based combat using Star Wars d20. D&D and action combat can work just fine (see Dragon's Dogma), though it obviously can't be faithful.

If it can't be faithful, then is it really D&D?

 

[rusty_shackleford]

As evidenced by KotOR, D&D and action combat just don't go together well at all. It's both a clusterfuck and a snoozefest where you're watching your character play animations while you issue a command every 5 seconds maybe and see numbers pop up.

KOTOR was just turn-based combat using Star Wars d20. D&D and action combat can work just fine (see Dragon's Dogma), though it obviously can't be faithful.

If it can't be faithful, then is it really D&D?

Not even ToEE -- which is typically regarded as the 'gold standard' for digital D&D adaptations -- is 100% faithful.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

Faithful doesnt mean or require 100%. Which cant be achieved anyway due to two different mediums. But some of us are capable of judging things on finer scale then extreme binary scales.

 

[Fairfax]

Even if ToEE was 100% faithful, it's based on 3E. Gygax was very critical of 3E's ruleset and considered it a different game, not just a different version (I agree). However, though Gygax didn't play ToEE, he got the impression that Troika understood the original adventure's spirit, and praised them for it:

Troika is 100% responsible for the content of the ToEE CRPG. All I did was answer some questions from their head developer in regards to the direction and interpretations he had taken and made. Fact is they are spot on in my estimation, although I have not seen any of the actual game.

Yes, Troika consulted with me, but I had precious little to add, for their designers knew the matierial, and the spirit behind it, perfectly.

So where does one draw the line? The ruleset is a major component, but being faithful to a game's style and spirit (which are also reinforced and influenced by the rules) is also very important. As far as rules go, I'd say that only AD&D-based systems could be truly faithful, but I don't see it as a binary thing. I'm fine with flawed adaptations or different rulesets that at least partially capture the game's original spirit, like BG1 or ToEE. I doubt this will be the case with BG3, but we'll see.

 

[Mr. Hiver]

When you completely separate the "spirit" from the ruleset - thats the line buddy. The spirit is not something that can be completely separated from the body and remain the same.

The rulesets are based on character stats imposing limits on the gameplay the player cannot directly override, but has to evolve and play with strategically and tactically. Thats what the core of an RPG is. So, as long as there are any such character imposed limits, the line hasnt been completely crossed. But the further away from that core and closer to that line you move the mechanics, so the player skills gains more influence on the game content and options within it then character stats, the further away you are from the "spirit".

Gygax may have only meant the "spirit of adventure" there, but specific rulesets are what provides that unique defining style of gameplay through characters and their abilities, not direct player skills. That creates distinct different roles and options, choices and consequences. When the player skill grows in influence it unavoidably lessens the characters stats influence. Which lessens and weakens the spirit.

The difference is in degrees and variations, until that final line is crossed.

 

[Curratum]

My only hope is that Wizards and M. Mearls want to use the game as a vehicle to sell even more 5E rulebooks and supplements and they will make Vincke apply the ruleset in a manner that is very recognizable when you go from the PC to the tabletop and vice versa, so there might still be hope for a good game.

 

[Lilura]

Gygax's opinion on Troika's ToEE doesn't mean Jack because he didn't play it.

Anyway, I posted a starting point and some pro-tips for ToEE. I'm pretty sure I'm the only independent commentator to take ToEE seriously and highlight its prime virtues. It's disgusting that such a write-up only has 30,000 views.

 

[Elu]

When you completely separate the "spirit" from the ruleset

The problem is, too many people by 'ruleset' understand 'mechanics', but not all rules are covered by mechanics, are they?

But the further away from that core and closer to that line you move the mechanics, so the player skills gains more influence on the game content and options within it then character stats, the further away you are from the "spirit"

There are parts of any ruleset that are crucial to the 'spirit' of the game and yet not part of mechanics. Examples: 'XP only for gold' vs 'XP only for kills'; 'Spellslot gain independent from spell aquisition, which happens in game' vs 'Spell aquisition on level-up from all encompassing list'; 'Magic items as a bonus element meant to shake things up' vs 'Wealth per level and expectancy of magic items built in encounters' etc.
The balance between mechanics and player skills has no influence on these.

When the player skill grows in influence it unavoidably lesses the characters stats influence. Which lessens the spirit.

But on the other hand, emphasis of player skill over stat influence may boost the spirit in other elements of the game i.e. Gygax's Tomb of Horrors.

 

[DalekFlay]

Thats a obvious lie, or you are that magnificently retarded. Because we LITERALLY do know something about the game, and we do actually and literally know what wasn't revealed although those are the very basics and foundations of the genre and those specific games...

While only a rare few are actually assuming "shit" specifically.

See? You are demonstrably deranged and should be institutionalized, along Tuco and few others. And i proved that with your own words, not by fallacies, over exaggeration or by lying about anything.

Unless I missed something we know vague comments that don't really say much and that's it. Some are wildly assuming things, and assuming the worst. Those are the people I was mocking. If you're not doing that, good for you, I wasn't talking about you.

 

[Elu]

Gygax's opinion on Troika's ToEE doesn't mean Jack because he didn't play it.

His opinion on the gameplay may mean nothing, but his opinion on the faithfulness of adaptation may be relevant if they had shown him how they designed crucial elements of questline, like the Orb of Golden Death.

 

[Lilura]

but his opinion on the faithfulness of adaptation may be relevant if they had shown him how they designed crucial elements of questline, like the Orb of Golden Death.

It was a faithful adaptation of the ruleset but not of the campaign. Troika were forced to cut too much stuff out. The factions are not fleshed out at all, for example. It's a skeletal implementation of the campaign. It's not faithful just because you put in the towns, the NPCs, most of the monsters, and a lore dump or two. You need the factions and the reactivity as well.

 

[Elu]

but his opinion on the faithfulness of adaptation may be relevant if they had shown him how they designed crucial elements of questline, like the Orb of Golden Death.

It was a faithful adaptation of the ruleset but not of the campaign. Troika were forced to cut too much stuff out. The factions are not fleshed out at all, for example. It's a skeletal implementation of the campaign. It's not faithful just because you put in the towns, the NPCs, most of the monsters, and a lore dump or two. You need the factions and the reactivity as well.

I don't remember too many details from tidbits I read about the module, but wasn't it integral part of Gygax's design to create a skeletal frame of adventure with the intention that it will be fleshed out differently by each individual DM? Thus, even if Troika managed to implement everything, they would still fall short of living, breathing game world. Nevertheless, I mentioned the Orb because it is instrumental in the endgame and represents Gygaxian design on many levels. As a plot item it can determine the fate of the Temple and PCs, as a quest reward it's an old-school artifact with both huge pros and severe cons, its lore has this feel of Howard and Ashton Smith that Gygax almost always employed. I don't think these elements are present in any DnD crpg past BG1, aside from ToEE.

 

[Lilura]

Are you kidding me? NWN2's strategy cam is as close as it gets in 3d to a tactical isometric experience. You just lack the basic human intelligence required in order to work it out. I'm dead set serious: you 'tards are on par with those who can't work out Gothic's controls. It's a sure sign of console 'tards that shouldn't be gaming on PCs in the first place. Get out of the genepool, pls.

Deadly serious. I'm not arguing against some of the benefits. However I was constantly reminded of when RTS developers a good decade earlier started adopting 3d. You could see the benefits that may eventually come; but the hassle added on top of it eventually still outweighted that benefit, and the fixed top down static predecessors still remained far nicer to play. Which likely is no coincidence, as Obs at that Point had limited experience with it all. Good ideas; flawed implementations. Unless you are talking about a community mod rather than official patches, anyway.

Electron's Strategy cam is Obsidian's greatest technical achievement, and the greatest tactical cam ever employed in an RPG.

And this is coming from someone whose blog is focused on "isometric" RPGs from Fallout to Jagged Alliance 2 to Temple of Elemental Evil.

So a veteran of those games (proven by write-ups) and a veteran of NWN2 (proven by write-ups) is telling you that Electron's cam can be set at a tactical-isometric angle with the added benefit of rotation, zoom and on-rails tracking (I even posted screencaps earlier), but you just put your head in the sand and prefer to double down on your parrot-ignorance; so much so, that I begin to wonder if you are an SJW as well.

 

[hiciacit]

This is what it will be:

• Third person view.
• Real-time action.
• You control a single character that you can level up within limits.
• Party-based gameplay is only possible in co-op. "Gather your party!" You can reach higher levels this way.
  
• Everyone will need to work together to repel the invasion. Stadia will be handling this in the backend. It will be like MMO redefined.