Baldur's Gate 3 - Rewriting of the Rules

PC Gamer reports how RPGs have to be changed from tabletop to PC games:

How Baldur's Gate 3 and Bloodlines 2 are rewriting the rules of the tabletop games they're adapting

What works for a pen-and-paper campaign doesn't always work for a videogame.

You can tell tabletop roleplaying games are in the midst of a renaissance because suddenly everyone is making videogame adaptations of them again. Some of this year and next year's biggest projects are based on tabletop games: Dungeons & Dragons, Cyberpunk 2020, Pathfinder, Vampire: The Masquerade, and the list goes on.

But converting tabletop rules to digital form obviously isn't as simple as translating every page of the Player's Handbook into code. Combat and stats, the bits rooted in numbers, are often easy enough to reproduce, but they're only a small component of tabletop role-playing--and for many, not even the important part. I recently sat down with developers behind Baldur's Gate 3, Bloodlines 2, and Pathfinder: Kingmaker to discuss staying faithful to the source material, where it made sense for them to diverge, and--perhaps most surprising--what happens when their experiments are so successful they end up back in the tabletop version.
[...]

Click to expand...

Thanks henriquejr!

More information.

Really good article, which I somehow missed. Thanks!

It's a valid discussion, that's for sure. I just hope they don't leave too much of the pen and paper mechanics out of the computer version.

I look forward to comparing their 5E decisions with those in Sword Coast Legends.

Will they get away with the same decisions people hated from SCL just because they're Larian?

My priority is to enjoy the computer game on its own merits, so modifying something from pen-and-paper is not a problem in my view (as long as it's not wildly different in many ways).

However, if there is an implementation which is not good and it matches pen-and-paper, I would have more understanding of the poor implementation decision than if it were a change from pen-and-paper and a poor implementation at the same time.

Gives me sword coast legends vibes. Hope Larian still mostly sticks to rules.

I dunno, D&D has always naturally translated very well to PC on a pretty much 1:1 basis. Normally it's just the combat rounds and initiative bit that gets simplified. I'm hoping it is this kind of streamlining they are talking about and nothing radical like changing core fundamentals like attributes etc. I think with Wizards of the Coast and the lessons learned from Sword Coast Legends this is unlikely, but who knows for sure...

Imho the biggest problem is the resting mechanism. I PnP you have to be economical with using spells or spell-like abilities because resting is restricted by the DM.
In a video game you either allow resting anywhere resulting in having hardly any ressource management (like in BG) or you have to somehow restrict resting. To design resting restriction both immersive and challenging is a difficult task.

Honestly, you could apply that to Neverwinter Nights too, which was a huge success, and still is almost 20 years later.

The key is doing it right.

Morrandir said:

Imho the biggest problem is the resting mechanism. I PnP you have to be economical with using spells or spell-like abilities because resting is restricted by the DM.
In a video game you either allow resting anywhere resulting in having hardly any ressource management (like in BG) or you have to somehow restrict resting. To design resting restriction both immersive and challenging is a difficult task.

Click to expand...

I've never cared about resting mechanics and whenever I've played a game that tires to make it an issue it's resulted in me disliking the game more because of the obtuse resting system. IMO video games are precisely about getting on with it and for me simply surviving the encounter means you are free to then get on with the game.

I didn't mind it so much in the Infinity Engine games as it allowed the player to decide for themselves how tedious and how strictly they wanted to be with resting, the better player having the luxury of a better overall game pacing. Likewise in NWN you were just punished with having to watch a loading bar for a few seconds.

IMO, the more convoluted you get with it, the more grindy it makes the game.

Yeah, it never really does anything for me. I prefer simple systems like BG (unlimited resting) or DA (recovery after each fight) to supply systems like PoE.

As many others here, I really think resting can become a tedious mechanic. I actually like the Might and Magic/Xulima approach where you have "food." You need food to rest, but resting is instant, and the longer the game goes the more "food" you can carry. Also the NWN/NWN2 instarest is also good. I don't like the whole camping thing that is in Expedition:Vikings or Pathfinder. Its a fun mini game a couple of times before it becomes a tedious grind due to it being time consuming and repititious. The only game in which it is actually decent in Darkest Dungeon, where you usually can only rest in longer dungeons and then only once or maximum twice, which makes resting both seldom and dramatic.

They wouldn't have to change nearly as many things if they made it turn-based instead of RTwP.

But I know that many BG fans want RTwP for reasons I'll never understand and so it will likely have to be a RTwP or some sort of hybrid or Arcanum style toggle. That's fine though I could't even bring myself to finish BG2 and I'm not even a big fan of Divinity: OS TB combat or Larian's brand of humor, so I'm just not the core audience.

I thought the camping in Expeditions Viking was fine. It was largely automated so it's not like it too much micromanagement. Only time you had to tweak anything was when a unit had injuries and that didn't take too long. Not something that is essential for every CRPG but feel like an "Expeditions" game needed to have it.

Morrandir said:

Imho the biggest problem is the resting mechanism. I PnP you have to be economical with using spells or spell-like abilities because resting is restricted by the DM.
In a video game you either allow resting anywhere resulting in having hardly any ressource management (like in BG) or you have to somehow restrict resting. To design resting restriction both immersive and challenging is a difficult task.

Click to expand...

To me PoE had the right intention but the wrong implementation. Camping supplies is a good idea, but give it carry weight (this if course implies that the game should have an inventory system with weight limitations) that matters. I like resource management as long as it's not extreme, and choosing how much resting I'll pack for as opposed to extra gear appeals to me.

Then add an option at game start, "unlimited resting". Problem solved.

This kind of system will get highly annoying if a game has extensive crafting so you carry around a boatload of components. Personally, I prefer it if a game only has limited options in that regard. But otherwise crafting components should have their own inventory and be regarded as weightless, likewise for currency.

I'm kind of sad the author didn't sit down with the developers behind DDO and Neverwinter,too.

I'm concerned about the idea that the video game changes could be pushed back into the PnP game. That hasn't always worked out for the best.

The conclusion to the article is appalling and shows a neglect for fundamentals in gaming.

In board gaming, knowing the rules is essential to playing. It is an essential part in board gaming, players can not play a game without knowing the rules, manipulating them is a fleshy bone (that by the way might compensate the use of probabilities)

Computer games do not require players to know the rules, resolutions of actions are hard coded. Players can ignore the rules and play a game. There is no difference between players who know the rules and those who do not.

This strongly affects the port of any board game since one essential bit is taken from a player.

TomRon said:

To me PoE had the right intention but the wrong implementation. Camping supplies is a good idea, but give it carry weight (this if course implies that the game should have an inventory system with weight limitations) that matters. I like resource management as long as it's not extreme, and choosing how much resting I'll pack for as opposed to extra gear appeals to me.
Then add an option at game start, "unlimited resting". Problem solved.

Click to expand...

Already covered. It boils down to RTwP vs PwRT.

RTwP contains limitations, a player can sustain a limited number of rounds (a round being when each party member has taken at least one action)

PwRT extend those limitations, people compensate mistakes by overspending resources.

When playing PoE RTwP, combats are swift, they can not last long before overfilling a player's capacity to sustain rounds. The consumption of resources is low because a player can not get a fight to last long. Resting is then much less frequent.

When playing PwRT, players can over extend fights and consume a lot of resources. They depend on rests a lot more.

Rest is no solution. Because RTwP contains limitations, players'limitations.

DAO had this right in a certain manner.

Ultimately, in RT or RTwP, a party can regenerate fully after each fight because players are not able to spend everything during a fight.

UgoIgo or PwRT change the deal because players can consume way more.

A player who can sustain 3 to 5 rounds playing RTwP is able to sustain 100,200,300 rounds playing UgoIgo, PwRT.

Resting was no solution because they could not part between RTwP and PwRT.

Morrandir said:

Imho the biggest problem is the resting mechanism. I PnP you have to be economical with using spells or spell-like abilities because resting is restricted by the DM.
In a video game you either allow resting anywhere resulting in having hardly any ressource management (like in BG) or you have to somehow restrict resting. To design resting restriction both immersive and challenging is a difficult task.

Click to expand...

PnP differs vastly with computer games.

The main restriction players face in PnP is the time they can spend together. Hence the experience is tweaked by this restriction fist.

PnP originated in a time when avatars were far more human than they have grown to be.

One thing is that players take from their life when they tweak rules as rule makers use to.

In life, you do not rest to limit fight. You rest because you can not sustain an unlimited fight. Professional athletes can fight three minutes and then must rest.

As avatars grew, players do not want that type of restriction. Implementing a rest period for avatars players do not want to rest is difficult indeed. It is not that difficult when game designers go for restricted avatars.

Avatars have grown less and less human over the years, they cant injure themselves, they have no permanent injuries, they do not get tired, they know no fear, they are always in control.

They are sort of an idealized version of players who do not want to feel restricted by petty things like being forced to rest. Sleep for the weak and players are strong.

rjshae said:

I'm concerned about the idea that the video game changes could be pushed back into the PnP game. That hasn't always worked out for the best.

Click to expand...

You mean like D&D 4e I agree 100%.

ChienAboyeur said:

Avatars have grown less and less human over the years, they cant injure themselves, they have no permanent injuries, they do not get tired, they know no fear, they are always in control.

They are sort of an idealized version of players who do not want to feel restricted by petty things like being forced to rest. Sleep for the weak and players are strong.

Click to expand...

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.