Baldur's Gate 3 - Rewriting of the Rules

I'm not a fan of insta-recover system like DA:O and Deadfire. I actually liked elaborated camping system like in Kingmaker and E: Viking but I didn't like having to deal with trash mobs in TB when you fail to rest successfully (takes too long).

I don't like the way this game is going tbh

I do wonder why this debate about the appropriateness of converting tabletop rules to CRPGs is being led now, after we have already had a plethora of great and not so great CRPGs based on such rules for nigh on 40 years. One should think that there were already plenty of experiences for what works and what doesn't, unless 5th edition rules were so different that you had to explore completely new solutions.

For example, we've had plenty of classics that successfully implemented dice rolls in combat for hits and misses (the very thing that Larian appears to question now…). If the mechanic doesn't work, it's IMHO not a problem of CRPGs in general or of dice rolls, but of game design in the specific case. To be sure, RNG-based misses were more frustrating in Morrowind than in Ultima IV, but that's merely because in a first-person 3D implementation, you would be expecting a bit more of a feedback on WHY you didn't deal damage. But I would certainly hope for BG3 to be more alike to Ultima IV than to Morrowind anyway…

As for resting mechanics, as has been said, there are good mechanics that don't result in busywork for the player. Set up a guard at the cost of their HP recovery… no HP recovery if you don't carry enough food (as Ultima VI did). Auto-HP-recovery after each fight sacrifices an important element that, if implemented well, turns a dungeon delve from a series of disconnected combat setpieces to a harrowing journey that makes you wonder at every corner if it is better to risk yet another encounter in an increasingly weakened state and with dwindling food supplies and health potions, or just turn around and restock on supplies in town: the element of attrition.

I think I was misunderstood concerning the resource management. I don't want to manage camping resources. I want to manage combat resources, especially spells (in D20).
I like the challange to win encounters with only a few spells cast in comparison to (boss) battles weher I have to go all in. Obviously this challenge doesn't actually exist when you can rest after every encounter.

Perhaps Larian will play a bit with the resting mechanics in 5ed where it's distinguished between short and long rests.

rjshae said:

This sort of thing has been around since the dawn of RPG. Hit points themselves have always been a feature of pure fantasy. It's an abstraction for the sake of player enjoyment.

Click to expand...

The made point that from a starting point, stuff was removed. So basically, that stuff was lost since the dawn of RPG.

The way to modelize health has nothing to do with the disappearance of features that existed.
One way to distribute minor, major, lingering, niggling, enduring, permanent, crippling, maiming injuries is to compare the damage done in one blow to max hit points.

Avatars have grown less human over the years. Injurying oneself, freaking out, losing control etc are all human.
Over exertion, being pushed to the limits are human condition.

Avatars are now deprived of all that side of things, which was not the case before.

Avatars are a one way street now. They grow stronger, they do not grow weaker.
In the past, there were systems that supported the deterioriating effects of age, past a prime, an avatar would lose capacities. It was up and down. Now it is up only.

Implementing a feature that players do not want because they do not like it is not possible.
Rest relates to exertion and players do not want their avatar to be subjected to over exertion. It sucks.

Players speak about choices and consequences, big decisions and stuff.
Players say they want a world that record their actions.

Rimword was thought as a human adventure. Pawns rising to characters through care.Being pushed, being over exerted, being injured, being crippled was part of the journey.

In Rimworld, small communities used to go through difficult times. There could be harsh times of recovery, stressful times that would push pawns, exert them. With a mature connection to drugs as drugs could help go through the harsh times.

A community could be hit hard and recovering could be even harder.

Players lobbied that out. They did not want to face decisions attached to it.

Rimworld has an organic way of growning relationship between pawns. Not taking care of a pawn could lead it to be incapacited. Big decision because what to do with the pawn. There were options, several ways of killing it, conserve it etc

Players did not want to face that dilemna, so now in Rimworld, everything can be undone. Dead pawns can even be ressurected. Because players did not want to cope with consequences that can not be undone.

Players resented, got angry that a pawn could be effected by loss of a friend. Two pawns became friends, for example because one risked its life by rescuing another through enemy fire. One pawn is incapacited in a later battle, it is dead weight, it is terminated. The remaining pawn mourned it. Unbearable for players who resented it as a penalty.



,

Morrandir said:

I like the challange to win encounters with only a few spells cast in comparison to (boss) battles weher I have to go all in. Obviously this challenge doesn't actually exist when you can rest after every encounter.

Click to expand...

No. In RTwP, players do not have the luxury of using tons of stuff during the short spell of a fight.
An infinite amount of resources means nothing without the time to consume it.

Atrachasis said:

I do wonder why this debate about the appropriateness of converting tabletop rules to CRPGs is being led now, after we have already had a plethora of great and not so great CRPGs based on such rules for nigh on 40 years. One should think that there were already plenty of experiences for what works and what doesn't, unless 5th edition rules were so different that you had to explore completely new solutions.

Click to expand...

There is no debate. Apart from it, it is not a matter of stuff that works, stuff that does not, well designed stuff vs poorly designed stuff.

It is a matter of what players stand and cant stand.
Way better a poorly designed, non functional feature that players like than a bullet proof designed, wonderfully functional feature that players do not like.

For example, we've had plenty of classics that successfully implemented dice rolls in combat for hits and misses (the very thing that Larian appears to question now…).

Click to expand...

Dice are seldom rolled in computer games. A number is randomly generated instead.

RNG is present in most video games, does not mean that players resent it and compare it to dice rolls.

an important element that, if implemented well, turns a dungeon delve from a series of disconnected combat setpieces to a harrowing journey that makes you wonder at every corner if it is better to risk yet another encounter in an increasingly weakened state and with dwindling food supplies and health potions, or just turn around and restock on supplies in town: the element of attrition.

Click to expand...

Name of a product that delivers that lately. Players do not want attrition. Players do not want to be bound, they want to prevail, they want to dominate.

For resting I’d like a random encounter approach depending on where you rest.

You can rest anywhere, anytime but the safer area and the more you prepare a camp will factor in to if you can attacked at night or how well you rest.

For instance if you just rest out in the open the chance you will be attacked during the night will be high. You could assign someone to stand watch then that character wont get any rest benefits.

If you clear a room with a lockable door then the chance of a random encounter would be very low. Also the amount that you replenish could be tied to how well you prepare for the night. Just locking the door and grabbing some shut eye on the ground would replenish much less than if you barricade the door, build a fire, cook some food then roll out some bed rolls to sleep on. That would give your entire party a full rest and replenish all spells, skill and health.

I think that would be more realistic and quite fun, for me at least. It also would allow to just immediately rest after a tough battle with out a severe risk of being surprise by enemies.

Resting becomes something you need to plan out rather than a button spammed after each fight.

Actually, Project Zomboid used to have a very similar approach.

They had an old school gaming approach to avatars: players were supposed to play through avatars and avatars were limited. Rest was thought as a way to recover from physical and mental exertion.

Rest did not happen from thin air and was connected to the situation, to rest safely meant securizing a perimeter which could be set in a more or less dangerous sector.

Players used to hole up depending on their exertion and the potential threat the place was.

Scavenging at night was an act of necessity.
They also had that nice idea of dissociating players from their avatar during the rest period: players heard everything that was happening during the rest time while the avatar might not (deaf, heavy sleeper)
Players could get aware of a potential breach in the perimeter while the avatar kept sleeping.

It was pushed away by players because rest is a delay, it postponed their dreams of power and wealth. Project Zomboid has turned into a building product, overhauling a neighbourhood, concentrating wealth etc
Rest has no room in the pattern. It is an annoyance.