Which one? Because again, you have different opinions about which D&D system is the "right" one right in this very thread.

It's not fair in the sense that it's outside of what the game is. The second Cloverfield movie was quite different from the first, and the third was quite different from both the first and the second. You can insist that Cloverfields 2&3 still be shaky cam, run from a giant monster movies and write off anything that isn't that. Or you can evaluate those movies on their own merits as successes or failures at what they are.

The Cloverfields might not be the best example. The second and third were not originally Cloverfield movies - they just purchased them, added some tangential monster scenes, and re-badged them. Hopefully that's not what's happened with Larian. :p

So I got curious and went to the website and steam to see what was said. Does anyone have source material for where they said BG3 would 100% follow the D&D rule set exactly? That seems to be the issue with the rule purists. That the game was advertised as following the core rules 100% and it isn't.

So I started looking around as I haven't really paid much attention to how they marketed it. I assumed it was based on the ruleset and like any change in medium, and company, they would adapt it to a computer game and put their own stamp on it. That seems very reasonable to me and to be expected.

I do expect a game that says they are based off D&D rules to have that basic feel/atmosphere of a D&D like game and for me they do. As soon as I started playing I felt right at home making a character, rolling the dice, seeing familiar classes, races, stats, magic spells, etc.,. It all felt very D&D to me in making my character. The atmosphere, the various monsters and critters, all felt like a D&D inspired game.

Now if a game said they would be based of D&D and then it was something like Skyrim I would be annoyed as they are pretty different rule sets and styles.

Anyhow the actual website for BG3 that I found was completely useless. Talk about bad design. There wasn't any clear place to find general information unless the video was meant to do that, which I didn't watch as I prefer reading: https://baldursgate3.game/

Now on Steam it did mention it: https://store.steampowered.com/app/1…aldurs_Gate_3/

"… based on the D&D 5e ruleset. Team-based initiative, advantage & disadvantage, and roll modifiers join combat cameras, expanded environmental interactions, and a new fluidity in combat that rewards strategy and foresight."

Although it says based on the ruleset which to me means they use it as a base and then go from there. It's just providing the base not the whole thing.

From WIKI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baldur%27s_Gate_III

The game will be based on the 5th-edition Dungeons & Dragons rule set, though it will include tweaks and modifications that Larian found necessary in translating it to a video game. For example, the combat system is expected to be weighed more in favor of the player than in the tabletop version, to make the game more enjoyable.[3]

Read some articles, like this one: https://www.pcgamesn.com/baldurs-gat…-fifth-edition

Where at first they imply it will be very faithful … but later clarify to state they will adjust it to fit the computer medium.

It suggests maybe people were reading more into how pure the rules and implementation were meant to be. At least I am finding disclaimers that indicate it wasn't meant to be an exact and strict implementation. So with that in mind even if I cared for a pure implementation I would not have expected it with this game based on what I was reading.

What do you mean by "which one"? If a D&D video game is releasing now everyone expects it to use the most recent ruleset. It has always been like that: BG1, 2, and IWD use AD&D2nd; IWD2, NWN 1, 2, and ToEE use D&D3rd; and now BG3 uses D&D5e. No game was released implementing D&D4th, we probably know why.

Anyway, it is unrealistic to think that WotC would agree on releasing a game using an outdated ruleset. I haven't read every comment in detail, anyone here wants to go back to use the THAC0 system?? :lol::lol::lol: -- Hell no

Ps. I have never watched Cloverfield so I don't understand what you were aiming for with your example.

No one ever said or expected the game to follow the core rules 100%. No game ever from the gold box games to BG3 implements the ruleset 100%. No one that has some experience with those games would expect that. It is an impossible task. So, I don't know where that is coming from.

But they do say that the game is based on the 5e and with WotC involved in the production it is reasonable to expect a close experience. The way you put it sounds like it is insane to expect that. For the fans of the tabletop game the closer to the source material, the better, because they really like it. Of course, that Larain will at some point try to temper the expectations of most purists by clarifying that there will be some tweaks.

But then again, I think Larian did a good job handling the rules and even the most purist should know that the rules allow for some homebrewing.

Being D&D I think there's next to no chance that there won't be some people getting upset at to how they end up implementing the rules.

I don't have a problem with a cRPG not cleaving too closely to a PnP system. It seems to me that what makes for a good system has different considerations on the tabletop, and on a computer. For example, whereas a paper system has to take into account simplicity, and flow of play, a computer system has no concern there, and can allow for more complex systems.

Not everyone.

"It simply must use the AD&D rule set, imo."

Haha, for some reason that's what I pulled off the top of my head.

Anyway, @gabrielarantest said he didn't watch them, so he has no frame of reference. How about Star Trek, then? The OG Star Trek, Next Generation, and DS9 all have completely different ways of going about their Trekking. OG is pulpy adventure with very little science. ST:NG is decidely one fisted, with technobabble deciding half the episodes, and roughly the other half concentrating on soap opera. DS9 disposes with the trekking almost entirely, focusing much more heavily on ongoing storylines. They're all Star Trek, though, and I like them all.

When a new Star Trek show comes out, you *could* insist it's just like the most recent one, or you could insist it's just like your favorite from Star Trek's history. Or you can judge it on its own merits and see if you like it on that basis.

Absolutely. You note an advantage of computer systems. An advantage of a human GM is improvisation and flexibility. Kingmaker ran smack dab into that with its balancing; there was no way for the game to adapt to its players, reducing the difficulty of an encounter, or better cluing players that at level 1 they were about to stumble upon an enemy they had no hope to defeat. I play with people and I play solo CPRGs and the experiences are very different.

And that is a perfectly valid position. I get why some people don't mind tweaking the rules, not everyone is a diehard fan of the core rules. What I don't get is when people invalidate the opinion of those that like the rules and want to see an implementation more in line with the ruleset. And most often use pejorative terms such as "purists". If a D&D video game adaptation comes out *there is absolutely nothing wrong in wanting that this adaptation is as close as possible to the source material*. It is also perfectly normal to ask (as a consumer) that the video game developer change the rules as little as possible because after all, it is an adaptation of the ruleset that you like.

It is astonishing how people invert this logic by saying that it is wrong to want that an adaptation of a system is as true as possible to the source material.

Well, that wasn't me. :p I don't think that is reasonable btw. Why WotC would do that?

hahhahaha sorry, I am not a Star Trek fan either. How about Star Wars? The Expanse? :lol: I like those (not the last SW trilogy :sick:)

But I think I get what you mean. And I respectfully disagree because I think you are comparing apples and oranges. In your example, those are all TV shows. A TV show that is a sequel to another TV show is not the same as a video game that is an adaptation of a tabletop RPG. A better analogy would be video game adaptations to the cinema. And tbh I get why people get disappointed when those adaptations fail to translate well what the video game was like.

Believe this: I'm totally not putting money up for this until I know for certain what I'm getting into, this time. The last two offerings from this company have seemed watered down to me, and development has gone in some ways that just don't sit well with me. From throwing money into kick starter projects to peeking into the window to see what's going on first, that's my approach this time.

The only thing that is clear to me is that this game has a very high profile, and generates a lot of buzz, both good and bad, and that is just natural. DnD "purists" are never going to be happy with any DnD implementation in a computer game, and Larian "fanboys/fangirls" are never going to be content with how RNG and generally sluggish the game's systems feel in comparison to the Divinity games they loved.

I think they key is to take the game for what it is, try to avoid comparisons because there is no game like this one, and then it can be enjoyed for what it is. The impressions I get is that Baldur's gate has thousands upon thousands of lines of professionally voiced acted text, a great portion of which are only unlocked/found depending on your choices, hundreds of secrets and tidbits hidden all over the place, interactions based on race, gender, background, and previous choices/interactions during that particular playthrough, and all in all a deep, rich story to be immersed into and consider "Your story". Unlike most "RPGs" these days, in Baldur's Gate 3 you won't be playing the same story and events as every other player, only differentiated by having a different name and appearance at best. You will be choosing and playing your own story as you go, and to me, that is the most attractive thing.

The game's combat and mechanics, sure, they will make that journey more or less enjoyable, but I'm personally not hell bent on whether my jump ability is too strong or not compared to tabletop, or if there are too few or too many fire surfaces during combat compared to Divinity. I already know I will get what I want from Baldur's Gate 3, and I feel any RPG fans can allow themselves to be excited about this over getting stuck on whatever game systems seem more or less aligned to each one's particular preference.

I never finished D:OS2.

Eventually, almost every battle became very long, complex and drawn out, full of tons of variables. Now, this sounds interesting—and it can be. In practice though, a battle could take 45 minutes, maybe even longer. Depending on which spells and powers you used, battles could go on for a very, very long time.

What happened with me was once a battle started looking bad for my party… say I made some early mistakes, or got unlucky on something, or didn't notice some additional enemies… I would reload the battle from the beginning to get a better shot at winning.

Why would I do such a cheesy thing? Well, I have limited play time. Do I really want to slog through another 25-30 minutes of a battle as I get more and more hopelessly behind, and then end up with a TPK? Sure, that's the HARdC0r3e way to play. But battles in that game often were kind of decided by the very beginning, or at least the first third of the battle. If things were going my way from the start, I would confidently continue on through the long process, the long animations, the back and forth and see the fight through to the end.

But if I got the sense I was gonna lose? Why waste time with the back and forth… 20-30 more minutes just to have a Game Over and then reload anyway?

I don't know how they can fix this. Long complex battles sound cool when you describe them, but after you've played six or ten in a row, it becomes a slog.

Another thing: In tabletop, a DM can just say "OK, it's obvious your party is gonna win this one just by pure attrition… we don't need to spend 25 minutes rolling attacks on zombies just to "prove" you all are gonna win… the battle ends, the party is victorious"

No DM in a video game. So even in battles you're sure to steamroll, it's a play through each animation, attacks and counter attacks to the end. Even though everyone knows the party would be victorious.

It's a weird problem. I hope they can figure out a way to address it.

Edit: Just want to add that I think this game looks great so far. I have some issues with some things about it I have read, but I'm avoiding spoilers, mostly. I really look forward to playing this game. I try to stay positive about things.

You cannot really implement 100% tabletop rules in a video game anyway, because a big part of tabletop is the real human beings playing the game itself. DMs and players both contribute to the pacing and play of the entire experience and that will never happen in a video game. So I don't care at all how closely they adhere to 5e rules. If the flavor is there, and it's a fun RPG, I'll be happy.

Sure, you might sometimes end up getting all the way through a long battle and having to do it over again, but if you made a habit of doing this it sounds like this approach would cost you more time. I can count the fights I ever had to repeat on my two hands.

As a suggestion re limited play time and feeling like things drag out and waste that time - reduce the game difficulty. Yes it can go against your gamer instincts but if the fights become so tedious that they end up putting you off a game entirely then there's little point trying to stick it out. This advice is something I've been coming around to over the past few years as my own free time has gradually disappeared.

Also why I often play on easier difficulty myself. It isn't that I can't win or manage on hard modes. It's that I simply find it gets tedious (and not-fun) after a while as so many games have so much combat in them. Combat is not my focus in games in most cases either.

I remember playing some games which had an 'auto-resolve' button. You clicked on that and the fight was over with whoever was winning being declared the winner by the computer. It was great for those tedious fights where you were easily overwhelming the opposition!!

For those that play games mostly for the story, I recommend games from Telltale Games. Good stories, but they are not considered cRPGs tho.

They're barely games! Don't get me wrong; I have played and enjoyed several. The Borderlands game is my favorite. But the choices are almost entirely illusory.