Ok good to know. I didn't get past the 2nd chapter I think? Idk. I just wasn't feeling it. The start of the game, where you make all the big decisions, seemed more interesting than the rest of it
All modern RPGs completely failed to catch my attention. Pillars 1 I have over 80hrs in trying to like it, never even went further than the castle you eventually get. I didn't get Pillars 2.
Divinity 1 & 2 I didn't like the mechanics or the story and never went beyond the first city in 1 or the prison in 2.
Torment and Tyranny suffered both from my dislike of the mechanics and a story that didn't interest me.
Pathfinder had familiar mechanics and an interesting story but the timers, difficulty spikes and the kingdom management made me put it on pause again... I'll need some time to go back to it.
I thought BG 3 would be the same but the fact you are personally involved in the story from the beginning was interesting to me. The familiar mechanics of D&D is a plus. So far BG 3 is the first modern RPG that I think I'll play to the end.
It's not perfect, I don't like all the flaming/acid surfaces, for instance and the inventory management certainly could be better but the story so far seems interesting, at least.
i bring this up alot but of the newer crpgs i only really liked the shadow run games and disco elysium.
i liked tyranny at the start but it really starts fizzling out in the middle. and just as it was about to get good it stops. it also has not really great combat.
i felt pillars just was not as good as say bg or even arcanum. it was trying to be way to serious imo and while i did finish it i never touched it after and have no interest in 2.
i have wasteland 2 as i got it free from a gog sale but have not started it as that setting does not intrest me as much as say fallout does.
tides suffers from just being planescape but less interesting. unlike say kotor 2 or motb it was not trying to do it's own thing. the story is beat for beat the same and it's very obvious if you played planescape and tides back to back.
i've become very picky when it comes to modern games these days as i tend to not like alot of them.
Something about Tyranny really clicked with me, personally. I really enjoyed how I was expected to make awful decisions and I could continually get out of them by clever legalese...
I fell in love with Tyranny at the start, as megamike15 says. It really wears out its welcome with a repetitive and easy to master combat system.
In fairness, have they really made going evil worth it? In RPG's generally I think by choosing the good option you are at a minimum probably no worse off than someone who is evil.
The only game I can remember going evil being absolutely worth it was KOTOR 2. Just because you got Force Crush, which was the most OP ability ever.
Maybe you were better off going a more evil direction with Tyranny. I really don't recall.
Anyways, my point is going evil is often more risky and the benefits are likely to not be any better.
Edit: Maybe Fallout New Vegas it was worth it too.
In all honesty, I feel that if you REALLY want to do Evil paths justice, you HAVE to set the game in a setting where the society itself is built around "evil" principles like institutionalized slavery, regular religious sacrifices etc. It would be the equivalent of, say, playing as drow characters entirely within a drow city. I've played some NWN/2 modules that were explicitly made for Evil characters too. Otherwise, trying to play as Evil in a Good/Neutral setting will ultimately make the player wind up in situations where their actions will seem nonsensical or even farcical because there is no way that society at large would permit those kinds of actions to continue without consequences (and if the player is powerful enough to simply ignore those consequences, then really what's to stop them from just blowing everything up or seizing control of the kingdom/empire/world themselves?)
This is why Athkatla works so well. Anything goes if you aren't trying to challenge the people in charge of the city and have enough coin to pay off the guards.
And like sometimes it doesn't even have to be a tangible reward in the game. It can just be great experiences that make it worth it. Like, even though its very over the top and ridiculous, this is probably one of my favourite dialog options ever in a game. It's not even an important encounter either. It just gives you that feeling of the power you now have over people.
Edit: It may also seem tame now, especially in a post Mass Effect/Fallout New Vegas world, but at the time I really enjoyed it. It's also worth noting that you do get this level of force persuade (possibly dominate mind?) I think a fair ways into the game. So it's not like you just start out with it.
And like sometimes it doesn't even have to be a tangible reward in the game. It can just be great experiences that make it worth it. Like, even though its very over the top and ridiculous, this is probably one of my favourite dialog options ever in a game. It's not even an important encounter either. It just gives you that feeling of the power you now have over people.
Agreed! One of my favourite memories of playing as a Dwarf Noble origin in Dragon Age: Origins was picking all of the snooty, "I'm better than you" dialogue options when talking to commoners. I ultimately reloaded because I'm too soft that way, but I appreciated how the game let you pick options that drove the point home about how you were ROYALTY and if you wanted to, you could completely and utterly ruin someone's life forever just because you didn't like the way they spoke to you.
Several "reload until you randomly pass the skill check" in there though.
Yes, it is certainly appreciated that avoiding combat is possible, but it comes with two very onerous conditions:
(1) You have to pass MULTIPLE (and at least some of them rather high) checks within the same dialogue sequence where the odds of passing them all in a row are very low. And since you cannot save your game in the middle of dialogue, you have to save-scum a LOT.
(2) As of now, you get no (or on occasion just a tiny bit of) XP for avoiding combat encounters. Relatedly, you also often don't get any of the other rewards.
So, under these conditions, I don't accept that the avoiding combat option is a genuine option in the game.
So it's about having a cake and eating it too? It's understandable you'll get less XP if you don't fight. That is valid for the original BG 1&2 games as well. Moreover, all the XP system will be reworked based on the beta, so no XP for avoiding combat will likely change.
As for passing the checks - again, do you want the game to be a simple clicker? You click through the dialogues and finish it, is that what you want? It's a DnD game, there will be checks. And nobody will guarantee you success as that is a D20 roll.
A pacifist run is always an exception, it's a neat thing to do. And a hard thing to do, which comes with its own risks. I don't understand the criticism above, to be honest.
So it's about having a cake and eating it too? It's understandable you'll get less XP if you don't fight. That valid for the original BG 1&2 as well. Moreover, all the XP system will be reworked based on the beta, so no XP for avoiding combat will likely change.
I 100% disagree with the idea that fighting is worth more than not fighting. If you want all play-styles to be equally encouraged, then XP should be based on the encounter, not on how you solved it. As long I get past whatever potential foes I'm facing, whether that's by conversation, sneaking, fighting, scaring them off, whatever, then that encounter should result in the same XP.
Otherwise, you might as well add style points to the combat or per party member when figuring out XP. Used barrels to explode everything? Double XP. Used the same cantrip the entire encounter? Half XP. Turned into a squirrel and bit everyone: Quadruple XP. Wizard hid behind a rock? No XP.
Several "reload until you randomly pass the skill check" in there though.
Yes, it is certainly appreciated that avoiding combat is possible, but it comes with two very onerous conditions:
(1) You have to pass MULTIPLE (and at least some of them rather high) checks within the same dialogue sequence where the odds of passing them all in a row are very low. And since you cannot save your game in the middle of dialogue, you have to save-scum a LOT.
(2) As of now, you get no (or on occasion just a tiny bit of) XP for avoiding combat encounters. Relatedly, you also often don't get any of the other rewards.
So, under these conditions, I don't accept that the avoiding combat option is a genuine option in the game.
I agree and disagree with some of this.
Condition 1: The multiple checks suck, and once you start in on one path/dialogue, you can't try a different tactic to avoid combat (at least from my initial play-through). In tabletop gaming, different characters can often try different tactics before combat starts. I get that it's hard to program that, but I would like there to be more flexibility in getting out of combats.
Condition 2: Missing out on material rewards is fine and understandable (if I didn't kill the goblins, how can I get the shiny whatever?). But that also further illustrates the discrepancy in XP.
I 100% disagree with the idea that fighting is worth more than not fighting. If you want all play-styles to be equally encouraged, then XP should be based on the encounter, not on how you solved it. As long I get past whatever potential foes I'm facing, whether that's by conversation, sneaking, fighting, scaring them off, whatever, then that encounter should result in the same XP.
I dunno, I don't agree with some of what seems to be the philosophy behind this. I think it's impossible to design a game that is both interesting and where every single play style is encouraged "equally". If outcomes to various choices in the game are all equal, what's the point of making choices? Pure flavor? This is something that I think PoE Deadfire attempted and failed as an interesting game partially because of this commitment to equality among various play styles.
Moreover, I think there's a risk-reward thing here as well. If you're trying to pass an encounter in a pacifist way that doesn't risk going into combat and thus doesnt risk going into a game over scenario, you are literally doing less than someone who engages in combat. This is not to say that combat should always be the encouraged solution every time. But it's worth pointing out that if you always give players an easier path that doesn't engage with the game's most complex system, but offers the same rewards as a solution that does engage with that complex system, you are pushing players to not engage with your game's most complex system. You are essentially designing a game that will motivate players to shortchange themselves. It's a bad design philosophy imo.
I agree with that and moreover D&D 5th edition is one of the worst possible rules systems you can use for a pacifist option in a cRPG.
The combat system is too much in focus and the skill system too basic for that to feel non random. I just feel it is a silly to advertise with that in the first place.
Moreover, I think there's a risk-reward thing here as well. If you're trying to pass an encounter in a pacifist way that doesn't risk going into combat and thus doesnt risk going into a game over scenario, you are literally doing less than someone who engages in combat. This is not to say that combat should always be the encouraged solution every time. But it's worth pointing out that if you always give players an easier path that doesn't engage with the game's most complex system, but offers the same rewards as a solution that does engage with that complex system, you are pushing players to not engage with your game's most complex system. You are essentially designing a game that will motivate players to shortchange themselves. It's a bad design philosophy imo.
I think Shadowrun handled all this the best; combat didn't give you rewards really, but based on the general concept of the game, you can only avoid combat for so long; indeed, it's possible in a lot of situations you can reach your objective without combat; but you're sure as hell not getting out without some resistance. In which case the main goal of combat is to survive and get out.
It's so elegant, I know it can't be applied to every game but I'd always say its a strong example of inherent concept working in design.
If a DM in a tabletop game awarded my party no exp for avoiding encounters with skills and diplomacy, I'd probably flip the table and never come back to that group.
I'm not sure what bad can be found there. Now it's known (thanks to the pacifist run) the game is open-ended. It takes a lot of forethought and effort, but you can play the story in so many different ways. There might be additions and tweaks (eg. non-combat XP) but it's ALREADY possible to play the game without fighting, even in Early Access, and without many classes/kits available. Isn't it a thing to like? It doesn't come by default, just like pacifist runs through BG:EE-SoD-BGII:EE don't come by default. But you can do it.
@JuliusBorisov There's a BIG difference here. BG is now 25 years old, and there were very few in-game options to avoid combat. The game was built entirely around combat. Going pacifist involves exploiting the game engine and rules to accomplish. There's a difference between "possible" and "viable".
Since then, we have games like Alpha Protocol, Tyranny, and Shadowrun that have rewards for avoiding combat and using your skills in other ways. BG3 is advertising pacifist runs as a feature, while not rewarding the player for doing so. BG3 has a lot stiffer competition for mechanics and roleplay than BG2.
No one is saying that the rewards for avoiding combat should be more than combat rewards, or even identical. Tyranny, for example, gives you a bunch of exp for it, but you don't get any of the (sometimes substanstial) combat loot. But if your game is being advertised with multiple playstyles, those styles need to be equally viable.
A - I think 5e is a fine system for pacifist runs. Skills are sometimes broad, but their application can be narrow as needed.
B - I think it's reasonable to make a pacifist run more challenging than a non pacifist run simply because you are limiting yourself by choice. Similarly, I would expect a "no spell casting" run to generally be more difficult than a conventional run for the same reason.
C - I dont see why all playstyles need to be equally viable. That feels like an expectation forced by particular people and not a convention that Larian or everyone 100% expects them to adhere to.
For what's worth: having an actual viable non-combat way for playing the whole game from start to finish would put BG3 back on my game list. I do not mind skill checks. As long as the usage of spells or class abilities also allows for avoiding combat encounters via dialogues altogether, that is.
So it's about having a cake and eating it too? It's understandable you'll get less XP if you don't fight. That is valid for the original BG 1&2 games as well. Moreover, all the XP system will be reworked based on the beta, so no XP for avoiding combat will likely change.
As for passing the checks - again, do you want the game to be a simple clicker? You click through the dialogues and finish it, is that what you want? It's a DnD game, there will be checks. And nobody will guarantee you success as that is a D20 roll.
In what way am I having my cake and eating it too? Your claim is illogical.
As for the checks, no sane DM anywhere would make their players go through four or five checks within each dialogue situation. So you are creating a strawman here by making it seem like I am advocating for no checks at all.
I don't think Larian has to build BG3 with a game like Tyranny in mind -- at all. This is an issue I have with some complaints on here, that seem to want BG3, specifically, to be the RPG that does absolutely everything.
I think game designers are much better served having a narrow focus and a set of realistic ambitions in mind when they set out to build a game. And I think building a game around the idea that it has to serve every potential kind of RPG fan is wrong. I think it's great that Tyranny excelled at branching questlines and dialogue-focused solutions. I don't think every RPG needs to borrow those concepts. By contrast, Tyranny is also lacking in a number of characteristics that other RPG's have -- it doesn't have a lengthy main questline, it doesn't have a broad open world approach, it doesn't have a particularly deep combat system.
No game can be everything even within its own subgenre. And games that try to be that way end up being uninspired failures. I think it's fine for a game based on D&D 5e rules to admit that combat is the most complex puzzle on offer so we're going to focus on an experience that makes that the main course.
I think it's fine for a game based on D&D 5e rules to admit that combat is the most complex puzzle on offer so we're going to focus on an experience that makes that the main course.
And I think it is absolutely not fine because the combat experience is not now nor has ever been the core experience of D&D or of RPGs generally.
It's a world where pacifists usually don't live very long. I thought the link to that run was a good example about the variety of options to play this game, and a point against "you can only beat this game by using evil means and murdering everyone, including innocents" (not quoting anyone, just generally speaking). I did not understand it as a claim that diplomatic solutions or avoiding fights will be equally easy and rewarded as "the usual way " to play, just that they are possible. I mean, look at the setting we're talking about, the world where the game takes place. Would it be logical to constantly win persuasion checks as a low level character? Some people are just hard to convince or simply can't be negotiated with. Some are so determined to kill you that you can't talk them out of it. That makes perfect sense.
Just my pragmatic two cents, I've mentioned before that I have no tabletop D&D background.
A - I think 5e is a fine system for pacifist runs. Skills are sometimes broad, but their application can be narrow as needed.
B - I think it's reasonable to make a pacifist run more challenging than a non pacifist run simply because you are limiting yourself by choice. Similarly, I would expect a "no spell casting" run to generally be more difficult than a conventional run for the same reason.
C - I dont see why all playstyles need to be equally viable. That feels like an expectation forced by particular people and not a convention that Larian or everyone 100% expects them to adhere to.
I think there are some issues with A and B.
A: the problem is not the amount of skills available and covering everything, but is the mechanics behind the skill rolls. You can't really built that much into particular skills except maximizing the stat bonus and being proficient in it - then you only have the very slowly increasing level bonus to skills.
The skill system simply does is incapable of having a sufficient skill gap - if I really focus on something I might have a +4-5 bonus compared to someone who completely ignores the skill. That's not enough compared to other RPG systems.
Either the expert randomly fails or the novice has a high chance at success. Compare it to 3rd edition where the difference can easily start at +7 and only increases more with additional levels.
There is also a really ugly interaction with how the game awards experience. Someone who kills everything in his path is not only becoming stronger faster (which is reasonable), he may also become the better diplomat.
B: more difficult is fine, but random skill rolls aren't difficult - they are random. Compare to PS:T: there are options that reveal a lot of hidden info, require persuasion and are sometimes genuinely difficult to find. It's the more difficult path compared to just killing your way through the game. But it is difficult by requiring you to build your character in a certain way & find the correct dialogue options. It's not simply random based on a roll. I'd say requiring you to pass arbitrarily difficult rolls without a chance to prepare in a way to make success extremely likely or even guarantueed, is not the difficulty you want for a dialogue based approach.
It's a world where pacifists usually don't live very long. <snip>
I mean, look at the setting we're talking about, the world where the game takes place. Would it be logical to constantly win persuasion checks as a low level character? Some people are just hard to convince or simply can't be negotiated with. Some are so determined to kill you that you can't talk them out of it. That makes perfect sense.
Having non-combat alternatives inside a game doesn't necessarily make them only for pacificts. Nor should it be a hard requirement being some kind of "skill monkey" build. If a character has specific spells memorized, they may very well unlock otherwise hidden dialogue choice to be available for players of various alignments.
There are lots of possibilities where the player could make an otherwise hostile enemy encounter give up their will to fight without actually entering combat. Such as mind controlling someone with enchantment spells. Or have an evil cleric break the wills of undead. (The latter was for instance also used inside one of IwDII's quests.) Similarly: poisoning, spreading diseases, cursing, sickening, frightening or other maligned status effects are also all fine instruments for a non-diplomatic, non-pacifistic, but nevertheless still non-combat playthrough.
In what way am I having my cake and eating it too? Your claim is illogical.
As for the checks, no sane DM anywhere would make their players go through four or five checks within each dialogue situation. So you are creating a strawman here by making it seem like I am advocating for no checks at all.
This is how it looked to me:
you - "I want to have an option to play through BG3 without/with minimal fighting"
me - sharing that link to say it's possible
Ammar - "but several "reload until you randomly pass the skill check" in there though."
you - agree and "yes"
So now you don't only want to have an option to play BG3 without fighting, but you want to do it in a special way. By the way, the maximum number of checks during a dialogue situation in BG3 is not 4 or 5 but 3.
I think it's fine for a game based on D&D 5e rules to admit that combat is the most complex puzzle on offer so we're going to focus on an experience that makes that the main course.
And I think it is absolutely not fine because the combat experience is not now nor has ever been the core experience of D&D or of RPGs generally.
@DinoDin "I don't think Larian has to build BG3 with a game like Tyranny in mind -- at all. This is an issue I have with some complaints on here, that seem to want BG3, specifically, to be the RPG that does absolutely everything."
BG3 SHOULD build on the previous games in the series. But since Larian is incapable of doing so, it needs to at least be competitive with other games on the market. Telling us that we can't expect Larian to compete with other games is not a point in favor of them.
In what way am I having my cake and eating it too? Your claim is illogical.
As for the checks, no sane DM anywhere would make their players go through four or five checks within each dialogue situation. So you are creating a strawman here by making it seem like I am advocating for no checks at all.
This is how it looked to me:
you - "I want to have an option to play through BG3 without/with minimal fighting"
me - sharing that link to say it's possible
Ammar - "but several "reload until you randomly pass the skill check" in there though."
you - agree and "yes"
So now you don't only want to have an option to play BG3 without fighting, but you want to do it in a special way. By the way, the maximum number of checks during a dialogue situation in BG3 is not 4 or 5 but 3.
Worth noting here that Pathfinder, the PoE games and Tyranny all had dialogues where there were consecutive checks. Multiple checks to get the good outcome isn't something novel in these games. In fact, I get the sense that if Larian limited these to one check per encounter, folks would use that as a pretext to complain about simplified dialogue checks were.
@DinoDin "I don't think Larian has to build BG3 with a game like Tyranny in mind -- at all. This is an issue I have with some complaints on here, that seem to want BG3, specifically, to be the RPG that does absolutely everything."
BG3 SHOULD build on the previous games in the series. But since Larian is incapable of doing so, it needs to at least be competitive with other games on the market. Telling us that we can't expect Larian to compete with other games is not a point in favor of them.
It doesn't have to fully adopt the features of every RPG out there. It's an unrealistic and imo, counterproductive, demand for fans to make.
You can obviously play D&D in many ways, depending on your playstyle.
But if you look and compare to other RPGs how much of the rules deal with combat and monsters, it is clear that D&D is strongly focused on sword and sorcery combat.
Also official modules are very combat focused. Combat is not the core of all RPGs but it is the core of D&D.
Comments
i bring this up alot but of the newer crpgs i only really liked the shadow run games and disco elysium.
i liked tyranny at the start but it really starts fizzling out in the middle. and just as it was about to get good it stops. it also has not really great combat.
i felt pillars just was not as good as say bg or even arcanum. it was trying to be way to serious imo and while i did finish it i never touched it after and have no interest in 2.
i have wasteland 2 as i got it free from a gog sale but have not started it as that setting does not intrest me as much as say fallout does.
tides suffers from just being planescape but less interesting. unlike say kotor 2 or motb it was not trying to do it's own thing. the story is beat for beat the same and it's very obvious if you played planescape and tides back to back.
i've become very picky when it comes to modern games these days as i tend to not like alot of them.
I fell in love with Tyranny at the start, as megamike15 says. It really wears out its welcome with a repetitive and easy to master combat system.
This is why Athkatla works so well. Anything goes if you aren't trying to challenge the people in charge of the city and have enough coin to pay off the guards.
And like sometimes it doesn't even have to be a tangible reward in the game. It can just be great experiences that make it worth it. Like, even though its very over the top and ridiculous, this is probably one of my favourite dialog options ever in a game. It's not even an important encounter either. It just gives you that feeling of the power you now have over people.
Edit: It may also seem tame now, especially in a post Mass Effect/Fallout New Vegas world, but at the time I really enjoyed it. It's also worth noting that you do get this level of force persuade (possibly dominate mind?) I think a fair ways into the game. So it's not like you just start out with it.
Agreed! One of my favourite memories of playing as a Dwarf Noble origin in Dragon Age: Origins was picking all of the snooty, "I'm better than you" dialogue options when talking to commoners. I ultimately reloaded because I'm too soft that way, but I appreciated how the game let you pick options that drove the point home about how you were ROYALTY and if you wanted to, you could completely and utterly ruin someone's life forever just because you didn't like the way they spoke to you.
https://www.reddit.com/r/BaldursGate3/comments/jm66sp/sword_coast_pacifists_guide_completing_ea_content/
Several "reload until you randomly pass the skill check" in there though.
(1) You have to pass MULTIPLE (and at least some of them rather high) checks within the same dialogue sequence where the odds of passing them all in a row are very low. And since you cannot save your game in the middle of dialogue, you have to save-scum a LOT.
(2) As of now, you get no (or on occasion just a tiny bit of) XP for avoiding combat encounters. Relatedly, you also often don't get any of the other rewards.
So, under these conditions, I don't accept that the avoiding combat option is a genuine option in the game.
As for passing the checks - again, do you want the game to be a simple clicker? You click through the dialogues and finish it, is that what you want? It's a DnD game, there will be checks. And nobody will guarantee you success as that is a D20 roll.
A pacifist run is always an exception, it's a neat thing to do. And a hard thing to do, which comes with its own risks. I don't understand the criticism above, to be honest.
I 100% disagree with the idea that fighting is worth more than not fighting. If you want all play-styles to be equally encouraged, then XP should be based on the encounter, not on how you solved it. As long I get past whatever potential foes I'm facing, whether that's by conversation, sneaking, fighting, scaring them off, whatever, then that encounter should result in the same XP.
Otherwise, you might as well add style points to the combat or per party member when figuring out XP. Used barrels to explode everything? Double XP. Used the same cantrip the entire encounter? Half XP. Turned into a squirrel and bit everyone: Quadruple XP. Wizard hid behind a rock? No XP.
I agree and disagree with some of this.
Condition 1: The multiple checks suck, and once you start in on one path/dialogue, you can't try a different tactic to avoid combat (at least from my initial play-through). In tabletop gaming, different characters can often try different tactics before combat starts. I get that it's hard to program that, but I would like there to be more flexibility in getting out of combats.
Condition 2: Missing out on material rewards is fine and understandable (if I didn't kill the goblins, how can I get the shiny whatever?). But that also further illustrates the discrepancy in XP.
I dunno, I don't agree with some of what seems to be the philosophy behind this. I think it's impossible to design a game that is both interesting and where every single play style is encouraged "equally". If outcomes to various choices in the game are all equal, what's the point of making choices? Pure flavor? This is something that I think PoE Deadfire attempted and failed as an interesting game partially because of this commitment to equality among various play styles.
Moreover, I think there's a risk-reward thing here as well. If you're trying to pass an encounter in a pacifist way that doesn't risk going into combat and thus doesnt risk going into a game over scenario, you are literally doing less than someone who engages in combat. This is not to say that combat should always be the encouraged solution every time. But it's worth pointing out that if you always give players an easier path that doesn't engage with the game's most complex system, but offers the same rewards as a solution that does engage with that complex system, you are pushing players to not engage with your game's most complex system. You are essentially designing a game that will motivate players to shortchange themselves. It's a bad design philosophy imo.
The combat system is too much in focus and the skill system too basic for that to feel non random. I just feel it is a silly to advertise with that in the first place.
I think Shadowrun handled all this the best; combat didn't give you rewards really, but based on the general concept of the game, you can only avoid combat for so long; indeed, it's possible in a lot of situations you can reach your objective without combat; but you're sure as hell not getting out without some resistance. In which case the main goal of combat is to survive and get out.
It's so elegant, I know it can't be applied to every game but I'd always say its a strong example of inherent concept working in design.
Since then, we have games like Alpha Protocol, Tyranny, and Shadowrun that have rewards for avoiding combat and using your skills in other ways. BG3 is advertising pacifist runs as a feature, while not rewarding the player for doing so. BG3 has a lot stiffer competition for mechanics and roleplay than BG2.
No one is saying that the rewards for avoiding combat should be more than combat rewards, or even identical. Tyranny, for example, gives you a bunch of exp for it, but you don't get any of the (sometimes substanstial) combat loot. But if your game is being advertised with multiple playstyles, those styles need to be equally viable.
B - I think it's reasonable to make a pacifist run more challenging than a non pacifist run simply because you are limiting yourself by choice. Similarly, I would expect a "no spell casting" run to generally be more difficult than a conventional run for the same reason.
C - I dont see why all playstyles need to be equally viable. That feels like an expectation forced by particular people and not a convention that Larian or everyone 100% expects them to adhere to.
As for the checks, no sane DM anywhere would make their players go through four or five checks within each dialogue situation. So you are creating a strawman here by making it seem like I am advocating for no checks at all.
I think game designers are much better served having a narrow focus and a set of realistic ambitions in mind when they set out to build a game. And I think building a game around the idea that it has to serve every potential kind of RPG fan is wrong. I think it's great that Tyranny excelled at branching questlines and dialogue-focused solutions. I don't think every RPG needs to borrow those concepts. By contrast, Tyranny is also lacking in a number of characteristics that other RPG's have -- it doesn't have a lengthy main questline, it doesn't have a broad open world approach, it doesn't have a particularly deep combat system.
No game can be everything even within its own subgenre. And games that try to be that way end up being uninspired failures. I think it's fine for a game based on D&D 5e rules to admit that combat is the most complex puzzle on offer so we're going to focus on an experience that makes that the main course.
Just my pragmatic two cents, I've mentioned before that I have no tabletop D&D background.
I think there are some issues with A and B.
A: the problem is not the amount of skills available and covering everything, but is the mechanics behind the skill rolls. You can't really built that much into particular skills except maximizing the stat bonus and being proficient in it - then you only have the very slowly increasing level bonus to skills.
The skill system simply does is incapable of having a sufficient skill gap - if I really focus on something I might have a +4-5 bonus compared to someone who completely ignores the skill. That's not enough compared to other RPG systems.
Either the expert randomly fails or the novice has a high chance at success. Compare it to 3rd edition where the difference can easily start at +7 and only increases more with additional levels.
There is also a really ugly interaction with how the game awards experience. Someone who kills everything in his path is not only becoming stronger faster (which is reasonable), he may also become the better diplomat.
B: more difficult is fine, but random skill rolls aren't difficult - they are random. Compare to PS:T: there are options that reveal a lot of hidden info, require persuasion and are sometimes genuinely difficult to find. It's the more difficult path compared to just killing your way through the game. But it is difficult by requiring you to build your character in a certain way & find the correct dialogue options. It's not simply random based on a roll. I'd say requiring you to pass arbitrarily difficult rolls without a chance to prepare in a way to make success extremely likely or even guarantueed, is not the difficulty you want for a dialogue based approach.
Agree on C.
There are lots of possibilities where the player could make an otherwise hostile enemy encounter give up their will to fight without actually entering combat. Such as mind controlling someone with enchantment spells. Or have an evil cleric break the wills of undead. (The latter was for instance also used inside one of IwDII's quests.) Similarly: poisoning, spreading diseases, cursing, sickening, frightening or other maligned status effects are also all fine instruments for a non-diplomatic, non-pacifistic, but nevertheless still non-combat playthrough.
This is how it looked to me:
you - "I want to have an option to play through BG3 without/with minimal fighting"
me - sharing that link to say it's possible
Ammar - "but several "reload until you randomly pass the skill check" in there though."
you - agree and "yes"
So now you don't only want to have an option to play BG3 without fighting, but you want to do it in a special way. By the way, the maximum number of checks during a dialogue situation in BG3 is not 4 or 5 but 3.
Yes, it has been in D&D CRPG's.
BG3 SHOULD build on the previous games in the series. But since Larian is incapable of doing so, it needs to at least be competitive with other games on the market. Telling us that we can't expect Larian to compete with other games is not a point in favor of them.
Worth noting here that Pathfinder, the PoE games and Tyranny all had dialogues where there were consecutive checks. Multiple checks to get the good outcome isn't something novel in these games. In fact, I get the sense that if Larian limited these to one check per encounter, folks would use that as a pretext to complain about simplified dialogue checks were.
It doesn't have to fully adopt the features of every RPG out there. It's an unrealistic and imo, counterproductive, demand for fans to make.
But if you look and compare to other RPGs how much of the rules deal with combat and monsters, it is clear that D&D is strongly focused on sword and sorcery combat.
Also official modules are very combat focused. Combat is not the core of all RPGs but it is the core of D&D.