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.
We've already had this discussion at length. First - everything here is in relation to the scenario in game. It doesnt really matter if I cannot have a +27 on my intimidate check if the roll percentages are bounded by where I am (and what level I am) in the game at that time.
There are also a literal endless number of contextual variants you can use to try to skew and adjust the rolls in order to produce a more stratified outcome. Providing advantage to your Half-orc Bard making an intimidate check against a set of halfings for example will dramatically change the likelihood of success relative to playing a human wizard with a 10 charisma and no points in any dialogue skill - but maybe the human wizard can supplement a spell to make the scenario work differnetly.
Having twice as many skills and twice as much stratification between proficiency or lack of proficiency doesnt necessarily mean the system is meaningfully better at achieving anything.
The "becoming a better diplomat" is of course exactly an issue with any game system that requires leveling to improve. That's true in all D&D games. Arbitrarily awarding x skill points that can be invested in any way you wish for killing a dragon is no more or less realistic than increasing a proficiency bonus for doing the same.
D&D (and almost all table top games) are built upon a layer of randomization in dice rolls. Combat is also inherently random, regardless of how you build your character. If you do not possess metagame knowledge of your future, then you should expect failure from time to time from the dice.
As a side note: I would find a pacifist run where I get 70 hours into the game only to find that I dont meet the precise set of requirements to continue without fighting much more frustrating that the chance that I'll fail a roll from time to time.
Maybe you prefer having a threshold of "I have x Charisma, and x Persuasion, therefore as long as I always select the right options I will always pass" - but I personally dont. I've DM'd plenty of games, and I've played in plenty of games. They're seldom run that way.
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.
Sure. So I want the ability to avoid combat in a genuine and viable way and not in a way that is fake/unrealistic. I think that's a pretty reasonable and noncontroversial expectation. And furthermore, nothing about it involves having my cake and eating it too.
On the Larian forum people have posted showing checks of as many as five within some dialogues.
But anyway, and this is not aimed at you specifically, the 'BG3 is above criticism' attitude I see in this forum not withstanding, on the Larian forum every one of the issues I have brought up has also been brought up by a lot of other people, including a great many people who self-identify as BG3 enthusiasts. There is widespread agreement there that checks in dialogue are way too many and way too unfairly difficult to pass. Ditto that not being given XP for choosing to use paths within the game to avoid combat is a very unfair thing. And on both these issues, apparently Larian themselves have said they agree that they need to take a hard look into these complaints. It's why I no longer see much point in discussing BG3 on this forum where BG3 is the *perfect* game. My time is better spent doing my discussing and debating on the Larian forum (the BG3 criticism thread here being the one exception where some meaningful discussion happens).
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.
3 checks is still bad odds.
A 50%, 50%, 50% check equates to 12.5% chance of actually succeeding
A 70%, 30% 10% check equates to 2.1% chance.
Even a favourable 90%, 70%, 50% is still only a 31.5%
If every 'avoid combat' dialog is like this, then ya, there really is zero point of having it in game. I also find it odd that the game goes "ok, you convinced me, now really convince me," "ok you really convinced me, now do it again just so I am sure I am convinced." It sounds like horrible mechanics and worse writing, especially if the only two outcomes is combat or no combat. Convincing a person not to fight should have its rewards in other ways, such as those lives that you spared helping you out later in the game in a meaningful way. By the sound of this conversation, that isn't implemented at all.
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.
3 checks is still bad odds.
A 50%, 50%, 50% check equates to 12.5% chance of actually succeeding
A 70%, 30% 10% check equates to 2.1% chance.
Even a favourable 90%, 70%, 50% is still only a 31.5%
If every 'avoid combat' dialog is like this, then ya, there really is zero point of having it in game. I also find it odd that the game goes "ok, you convinced me, now really convince me," "ok you really convinced me, now do it again just so I am sure I am convinced." It sounds like horrible mechanics and worse writing, especially if the only two outcomes is combat or no combat. Convincing a person not to fight should have its rewards in other ways, such as those lives that you spared helping you out later in the game in a meaningful way. By the sound of this conversation, that isn't implemented at all.
I suspect this is an incorrect characterization of these multi-stage dialogue checks. As I noted above, other games have good rewards hidden behind a gate of multiple dialogue checks. These aren't just "you need to convince me more" but instead one dialogue check leading to another dialogue choice where players can use a different skill (or sometimes use some other flagged thing like possessing an item or having completed a quest). This is actually a perfectly reasonable way to script dialogue and has been a widespread standard since even Planescape Torment. And it matches perfectly with believable dialogue.
1. You convinced me to not try and kill you and your party. 2. Now convince me to join your fight against the big bad. 3. Now convince me to also give up some item or gold in support of this. Or dozens of other easily imaginable permutations.
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.
3 checks is still bad odds.
A 50%, 50%, 50% check equates to 12.5% chance of actually succeeding
A 70%, 30% 10% check equates to 2.1% chance.
Even a favourable 90%, 70%, 50% is still only a 31.5%
If every 'avoid combat' dialog is like this, then ya, there really is zero point of having it in game. I also find it odd that the game goes "ok, you convinced me, now really convince me," "ok you really convinced me, now do it again just so I am sure I am convinced." It sounds like horrible mechanics and worse writing, especially if the only two outcomes is combat or no combat. Convincing a person not to fight should have its rewards in other ways, such as those lives that you spared helping you out later in the game in a meaningful way. By the sound of this conversation, that isn't implemented at all.
I suspect this is an incorrect characterization of these multi-stage dialogue checks. As I noted above, other games have good rewards hidden behind a gate of multiple dialogue checks. These aren't just "you need to convince me more" but instead one dialogue check leading to another dialogue choice where players can use a different skill (or sometimes use some other flagged thing like possessing an item or having completed a quest). This is actually a perfectly reasonable way to script dialogue and has been a widespread standard since even Planescape Torment. And it matches perfectly with believable dialogue.
1. You convinced me to not try and kill you and your party. 2. Now convince me to join your fight against the big bad. 3. Now convince me to also give up some item or gold in support of this. Or dozens of other easily imaginable permutations.
Is that actually what the conversations are like in BG3 though?
We're not talking other games, we're talking BG3 and how they are implementing multiple checks.
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.
Checks that are pass/fail entirely dependant on your skills. THAT'S the rub. BG3's non combat paths aren't "challengeing" they are random.
I suspect this is an incorrect characterization of these multi-stage dialogue checks. As I noted above, other games have good rewards hidden behind a gate of multiple dialogue checks. These aren't just "you need to convince me more" but instead one dialogue check leading to another dialogue choice where players can use a different skill (or sometimes use some other flagged thing like possessing an item or having completed a quest). This is actually a perfectly reasonable way to script dialogue and has been a widespread standard since even Planescape Torment. And it matches perfectly with believable dialogue.
snip
I've been meaning to reply to some of your (and other users) points, but this one I can more quickly sum up: in the scenario I played, the succeeding* checks used the same skill.
* using succeeding to mean the checks next in the dialogue branch after making a successful check
I have the opinion that if I cannot die or I will pass all the checks, have 100% chance to avoid all fights or I simply know beforehand that if I have X stat I will always pass that check... I´d better be watching a movie, reading a book or a comic, playing a visual novel or graphic adventure...
Maybe it´s because I´m used to Tabletop, where any roll is definite, but I do not really get what´s the problem with failing a roll in a videogame. You can just reload infinite times, unlike in PNP.
When I play a CRPG videogame or a roleplaying game I expect to have the chance to fail and die or to achieve success against difficult odds, to have unexpected results in the same situation; because if not, books usually have more developed stories, I do not need a videogame IMHO.
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.
Checks that are pass/fail entirely dependant on your skills. THAT'S the rub. BG3's non combat paths aren't "challengeing" they are random.
Yeah, that´s what you can expect from any game based in a D20 ruleset. The chances of success failing are high ( 1 to 20 is a wide difference). There are games that are even worse, using a d100, like Warhammer, Pillars of eternity and stuff. If you play one that´s what you get. If you want foreseeable outcomes you may want to try another game, not D20 games.
It´s like playing poker but also asking to choose the cards in your hand instead of the ones are given to you randomly so you would know beforehand how are you going to play. It´s unlikely they allow it because it´s a game of luck.
If you want sure bets, you simply play chess, not poker.
But Poker you play in rounds. So your luck tends to average out with time.
The problem with BG3 (and honestly in 5th edition D&D I think) luck is more decisive than character skill. It's one thing if even a skilled Diplomat has a chance to fail in a difficult negotiation - the problem with the skill system is that it doesn't really have automatic successes for tasks that should be routine for your character.
I think you missed the point. You always have the chance to fail no matter what your hand is. That´s the point. You do not get to use spells or advantage to improve your chances in poker but you can discard your cards instead.
In Poker you are only able to discard your hand a limited number of times. You are limited by the hand you have, the same way you are limited by how good is your character at doing something and how difficult is the task you have to make. You have more chances to win with a repoker than with a single pair, but you may lose a game with a full house or win with a pair. You never know.
It averages if you play different games in the dozens, but not in the same game. Same in a D20
You may fail in to hit in one round but if you are fighting for 100 rounds in average you will succeed, even more if you are good at fighting. Same if you repeat the same conversation 100 times.
D20 is made in a way that every point of difference it´s 5% chance of success. If you need a 10 you have 55% if you need a 2 you have 95%. If you need a 1 you have 100%. Advantage improves your chances. There are also many ways to get advantage or to improve your chances, like spells, feats, etc.
in fact, if you follow probability law it´s harder to fail than to have success in flat checks, but you always have the chance to fail.
The problem with BG3 (and honestly in 5th edition D&D I think) luck is more decisive than character skill. It's one thing if even a skilled Diplomat has a chance to fail in a difficult negotiation - the problem with the skill system is that it doesn't really have automatic successes for tasks that should be routine for your character.
It has. You automatically succeed at jumping, make an impression in a neutral creature, casting a spell (usually), running, sheath and unsheath your weapon or nock an arrow in your bow; react swiftly to make an opportunity attack, attack and move without tripping yourself, take something from your backpack in the middle of a fight, operate a lever in the middle of combat, pushing someone that is not aware of you, etc.
A normal person would never do that without putting some effort (if they could make it at all).
I think we are so used to play with superhuman characters that we think not being able to destroy a rock in one hit or intimidate a demon into submission at the first try is a failure.
In *combat* it averages out, in dialogues it does not because it comes to one or two rolls.
For example, PS: T has a wisdom check (24, I think) as an option to bypass the final battle. I feel giving the Wis 24 character a 20% chance to fail and a Wis 15 character a 50% chance to succeed would make the character building less impactful and the game worse - but this is exaactly how it would work in BG3.
As for destroying a rock: if I am playing a half-orc berserker wearing a Girdle of Giant Strength - yes, I should be able to do it automatically.
It's true that many of these feats are superhuman and that you should not able to do it easily - but the point is that with the skill system the above mentioned half-orc can easily fail while the Str 10 mage could very well succeed.
Or to convince the demon: it's ok that you don't auto-succeed, but if the silver tongued bard has a 60% chance then the barely literate Barbarian shouldn't have a 30% chance, but should automatically fail.
The system works in P&P since in those situation the DM is likely to exercise some discretion about whom he allows a roll in the first place, but in a computer game this simply doesn't work as well as the PS:T approach.
Maybe it´s because I´m used to PNP but since you can cast the friends cantrip unlimited times for a free advantage in diplomatic rolls any time (in PNP the target becomes hostile after the effect of "friends" or "charm spell" wears off) and you can also use guidance in diplomatic rolls; honestly the diplomatic checks are borderline laughable anyway, but I get your point if you do not like to fail checks.
I get that If your character is uberstrong or supersmart or charismatic you want to feel that it shows ingame so you can do something others can without failure, and I respect that, but I personally do not particularly care for that.
I prefer to have a chance of success if I happen to have a character below 24 wisdom to do the same or a chance for a ubercharacter to fail. It seems bg3 uses the latter.
For example, PS: T has a wisdom check (24, I think) as an option to bypass the final battle. I feel giving the Wis 24 character a 20% chance to fail and a Wis 15 character a 50% chance to succeed would make the character building less impactful and the game worse - but this is exaactly how it would work in BG3.
The absolutism of this is very off-putting for me. My very, very, very wise 23 wisdom character apparently lacks that tiny spark of insight and must now engage in a battle to the death. I dont see this as good design necessarily. Arbitrary thresholds and limitations are precisely that: Arbitrary requirements that gate you out of ways to play the game.
You may not love that my Barbarian has even a 30% chance to avoid combat diplomatically - but I appreciate even having the *chance* to do something that my character may want to do.
I do think when it came to dice rolls for skill checks, Kingmaker seemed to do the best job of recent games. I found the threshold + guarantee of Pillars to be somewhat movie-like as Psicovic says above. Or my comparison was always like ordering off a restaurant menu.
But Kingmaker has a number of checks that, at least by the midgame, you can build a party so that many checks are nearly guaranteed. They still exist with a d20 roll, but the possible modifiers you can achieve can bump up many of the rolls to a guarantee. By the same token, even within the same area, several other checks were within the range of possible failure. And it was very difficult to build your party or main character in such a way as to guarantee *every* check even if you could guarantee some types.
I do think when it came to dice rolls for skill checks, Kingmaker seemed to do the best job of recent games. I found the threshold + guarantee of Pillars to be somewhat movie-like as Psicovic says above. Or my comparison was always like ordering off a restaurant menu.
Man, if that was the best, I'd hate to see anything less than that based on my experience with that game.
I do think when it came to dice rolls for skill checks, Kingmaker seemed to do the best job of recent games. I found the threshold + guarantee of Pillars to be somewhat movie-like as Psicovic says above. Or my comparison was always like ordering off a restaurant menu.
Man, if that was the best, I'd hate to see anything less than that based on my experience with that game.
I think you're hung up on one small point about the skill checks, the perception checks on the map.
I hate to admit it, but I save scum *a lot*, particularly with dice rolling. BG3 might be the first game that I've played where I'm not constantly save scumming after failing a roll. The results aren't likely going to be rewarding, but the different outcomes from a failure have often been interesting enough that I haven't felt that need.
So, it's proven, avoiding combat and aiming for diplomatic solutions is officially against the tradition of the old BG games .
Larian probably shouldn't have advertised the ability to do so then. People act like any kind of criticism is a personal attack and must immiediately be stomped out.
According to @kanisatha , the Larian forums are actually OPEN to criticism. While here, its some kind of sacred cow.
So, it's proven, avoiding combat and aiming for diplomatic solutions is officially against the tradition of the old BG games .
Larian probably shouldn't have advertised the ability to do so then. People act like any kind of criticism is a personal attack and must immiediately be stomped out.
According to @kanisatha , the Larian forums are actually OPEN to criticism. While here, its some kind of sacred cow.
I´ve been in larian forums since Divinity ego dragonis and I can assure you it´s the same here and there.
In fact I´ve seen several posts of kanisatha there claiming they wer censoring him and the rtwp vs TB debate in Larian forums because they transfer any discussion about that topic to the proper thread instead of being discussed in several unrelated topics. https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=707710#Post707710
I am positively surprised that he changed his mind about the Larian forums. IIRC his words were something alongside the lines of that being a forum full of zealots, fanboys and cheerleaders.
Good thing it seems it´s not the case anymore for him, it seems. That said, I´ve never seen any particular bias in this forum, there are people that like it, people that don´t. Some more vocal than others, but that´s it.
So, it's proven, avoiding combat and aiming for diplomatic solutions is officially against the tradition of the old BG games .
Larian probably shouldn't have advertised the ability to do so then. People act like any kind of criticism is a personal attack and must immiediately be stomped out.
According to @kanisatha , the Larian forums are actually OPEN to criticism. While here, its some kind of sacred cow.
Not just open to criticism but it's encouraged. The mods there strongly defend the critics against their own Larian/D:OS fanboys and repeatedly reinforce that alternative points of view are both welcome and are to be respected.
I do think when it came to dice rolls for skill checks, Kingmaker seemed to do the best job of recent games. I found the threshold + guarantee of Pillars to be somewhat movie-like as Psicovic says above. Or my comparison was always like ordering off a restaurant menu.
But Kingmaker has a number of checks that, at least by the midgame, you can build a party so that many checks are nearly guaranteed. They still exist with a d20 roll, but the possible modifiers you can achieve can bump up many of the rolls to a guarantee. By the same token, even within the same area, several other checks were within the range of possible failure. And it was very difficult to build your party or main character in such a way as to guarantee *every* check even if you could guarantee some types.
I consider the PoE system to be the best by far, because although a certain amount of randomness is still present, it is highly minimized. The Kingmaker system is a very good second-best, especially at higher levels when you've been able to build up your skill check specialists. The D&D system is the worst, and I do not feel even a tinge of guilt cheating the D&D system as much as I possibly can.
So, it's proven, avoiding combat and aiming for diplomatic solutions is officially against the tradition of the old BG games .
Larian probably shouldn't have advertised the ability to do so then. People act like any kind of criticism is a personal attack and must immiediately be stomped out.
According to @kanisatha , the Larian forums are actually OPEN to criticism. While here, its some kind of sacred cow.
I´ve been in larian forums since Divinity ego dragonis and I can assure you it´s the same here and there. In fact I´ve seen several posts of kanisatha there claiming they are censoring him and the rtwp vs TB debate in Larian forums because they transfer any discussion about that topic to the proper thread instead of being discussed in several unrelated topics. I am positively surprised that he changed his mind about the Larian forums. IIRC his words were something alongside the lines of that being a forum full of zealots, fanboys and cheerleaders.
You are blatantly misrepresenting me. I have never said the forum (i.e. the forum mods) are trying to censor me. I have been very critical of some of the posters there, and in every instance I said that the forum mods have defended my right to say so. The "forum" is the people who control and run it, not the people who post in it.
Mmm, I do not really share your opinion about the Larian forums. The only difference about this forum and Larian forums is that in Larian forums they are more lenient with people that use rude/despective language, call names to others, ignores forum rules and stuff like that so sometimes the discussions get ugly without a mod intervening.
The treatment of the free expression of opinions looks the same to me.
I do think when it came to dice rolls for skill checks, Kingmaker seemed to do the best job of recent games. I found the threshold + guarantee of Pillars to be somewhat movie-like as Psicovic says above. Or my comparison was always like ordering off a restaurant menu.
But Kingmaker has a number of checks that, at least by the midgame, you can build a party so that many checks are nearly guaranteed. They still exist with a d20 roll, but the possible modifiers you can achieve can bump up many of the rolls to a guarantee. By the same token, even within the same area, several other checks were within the range of possible failure. And it was very difficult to build your party or main character in such a way as to guarantee *every* check even if you could guarantee some types.
I consider the PoE system to be the best by far, because although a certain amount of randomness is still present, it is highly minimized. The Kingmaker system is a very good second-best, especially at higher levels when you've been able to build up your skill check specialists. The D&D system is the worst, and I do not feel even a tinge of guilt cheating the D&D system as much as I possibly can.
I get what you're saying here. One thing I'll say in praise of PoE are the passive checks done on some stat or disposition or other criteria that happen throughout dialogues and other encounters. These things felt enough out of the player's control that there was some drama to them.
My problem were the choice-triggered checks. Which, outside of a few forced encounters, could be gamed by simply waiting long enough to level up a stat or boost up a disposition. It sucked a great deal of drama out of encounters, because as a player you knew that if you simply met some threshold, boom, you'd solve that step of the quest. This is even more true of Deadfire which had a great deal more latitude in the path a player could take. I think a great example of this is how much easier it is to solve the Hasongo section if you farmed much of the side content versus if you go directly there.
Combat is interesting because dice rolls contain uncertainty in the outcome. Even though there also exists way to build your character, or use certain skills that can create a few guaranteed moves within the space of combat. Having a non-combat checks system that mimics this dynamic is imo the best way to go. It's notable that the recent XCOM, a strategy game loved by many RPG fans, mimics this guaranteed moves + random moves dynamic.
Some randomness for skill checks is ok. To go back to the Torment example, I feel 100% sucess for Wis >= 24, 100% failure for Wis <19 and an increasing random chance for success between 19 and 23 would work quite well.
The problem with 5th edition that the randomness is too much for a cRPG without a real DM. Of course this is an opinion (mine), but from past discussions on RPG design I feel that people who desire random rolls on major choices/events are a minority.
People are fine with trying to get the quest giver to give you a bigger reward coming down to a roll, but something like:
I do think when it came to dice rolls for skill checks, Kingmaker seemed to do the best job of recent games. I found the threshold + guarantee of Pillars to be somewhat movie-like as Psicovic says above. Or my comparison was always like ordering off a restaurant menu.
But Kingmaker has a number of checks that, at least by the midgame, you can build a party so that many checks are nearly guaranteed. They still exist with a d20 roll, but the possible modifiers you can achieve can bump up many of the rolls to a guarantee. By the same token, even within the same area, several other checks were within the range of possible failure. And it was very difficult to build your party or main character in such a way as to guarantee *every* check even if you could guarantee some types.
I consider the PoE system to be the best by far, because although a certain amount of randomness is still present, it is highly minimized. The Kingmaker system is a very good second-best, especially at higher levels when you've been able to build up your skill check specialists. The D&D system is the worst, and I do not feel even a tinge of guilt cheating the D&D system as much as I possibly can.
I get what you're saying here. One thing I'll say in praise of PoE are the passive checks done on some stat or disposition or other criteria that happen throughout dialogues and other encounters. These things felt enough out of the player's control that there was some drama to them.
My problem were the choice-triggered checks. Which, outside of a few forced encounters, could be gamed by simply waiting long enough to level up a stat or boost up a disposition. It sucked a great deal of drama out of encounters, because as a player you knew that if you simply met some threshold, boom, you'd solve that step of the quest. This is even more true of Deadfire which had a great deal more latitude in the path a player could take. I think a great example of this is how much easier it is to solve the Hasongo section if you farmed much of the side content versus if you go directly there.
Combat is interesting because dice rolls contain uncertainty in the outcome. Even though there also exists way to build your character, or use certain skills that can create a few guaranteed moves within the space of combat. Having a non-combat checks system that mimics this dynamic is imo the best way to go. It's notable that the recent XCOM, a strategy game loved by many RPG fans, mimics this guaranteed moves + random moves dynamic.
A rare instance where we have some common ground. I don't quite agree about Deadfire, but perhaps that is because I don't equate gambling (the randomness of dice) with drama, or at least with the kind of drama that I appreciate. But, with combat, I agree. Without some randomness, combat becomes boring.
Mmm, I do not really share your opinion about the Larian forums. The only difference about this forum and Larian forums is that in Larian forums they are more lenient with people that use rude/despective language, call names to others, ignores forum rules and stuff like that so sometimes the discussions get ugly without a mod intervening.
The treatment of the free expression of opinions looks the same to me.
Comments
We've already had this discussion at length. First - everything here is in relation to the scenario in game. It doesnt really matter if I cannot have a +27 on my intimidate check if the roll percentages are bounded by where I am (and what level I am) in the game at that time.
There are also a literal endless number of contextual variants you can use to try to skew and adjust the rolls in order to produce a more stratified outcome. Providing advantage to your Half-orc Bard making an intimidate check against a set of halfings for example will dramatically change the likelihood of success relative to playing a human wizard with a 10 charisma and no points in any dialogue skill - but maybe the human wizard can supplement a spell to make the scenario work differnetly.
Having twice as many skills and twice as much stratification between proficiency or lack of proficiency doesnt necessarily mean the system is meaningfully better at achieving anything.
The "becoming a better diplomat" is of course exactly an issue with any game system that requires leveling to improve. That's true in all D&D games. Arbitrarily awarding x skill points that can be invested in any way you wish for killing a dragon is no more or less realistic than increasing a proficiency bonus for doing the same.
D&D (and almost all table top games) are built upon a layer of randomization in dice rolls. Combat is also inherently random, regardless of how you build your character. If you do not possess metagame knowledge of your future, then you should expect failure from time to time from the dice.
As a side note: I would find a pacifist run where I get 70 hours into the game only to find that I dont meet the precise set of requirements to continue without fighting much more frustrating that the chance that I'll fail a roll from time to time.
Maybe you prefer having a threshold of "I have x Charisma, and x Persuasion, therefore as long as I always select the right options I will always pass" - but I personally dont. I've DM'd plenty of games, and I've played in plenty of games. They're seldom run that way.
On the Larian forum people have posted showing checks of as many as five within some dialogues.
But anyway, and this is not aimed at you specifically, the 'BG3 is above criticism' attitude I see in this forum not withstanding, on the Larian forum every one of the issues I have brought up has also been brought up by a lot of other people, including a great many people who self-identify as BG3 enthusiasts. There is widespread agreement there that checks in dialogue are way too many and way too unfairly difficult to pass. Ditto that not being given XP for choosing to use paths within the game to avoid combat is a very unfair thing. And on both these issues, apparently Larian themselves have said they agree that they need to take a hard look into these complaints. It's why I no longer see much point in discussing BG3 on this forum where BG3 is the *perfect* game. My time is better spent doing my discussing and debating on the Larian forum (the BG3 criticism thread here being the one exception where some meaningful discussion happens).
3 checks is still bad odds.
A 50%, 50%, 50% check equates to 12.5% chance of actually succeeding
A 70%, 30% 10% check equates to 2.1% chance.
Even a favourable 90%, 70%, 50% is still only a 31.5%
If every 'avoid combat' dialog is like this, then ya, there really is zero point of having it in game. I also find it odd that the game goes "ok, you convinced me, now really convince me," "ok you really convinced me, now do it again just so I am sure I am convinced." It sounds like horrible mechanics and worse writing, especially if the only two outcomes is combat or no combat. Convincing a person not to fight should have its rewards in other ways, such as those lives that you spared helping you out later in the game in a meaningful way. By the sound of this conversation, that isn't implemented at all.
I suspect this is an incorrect characterization of these multi-stage dialogue checks. As I noted above, other games have good rewards hidden behind a gate of multiple dialogue checks. These aren't just "you need to convince me more" but instead one dialogue check leading to another dialogue choice where players can use a different skill (or sometimes use some other flagged thing like possessing an item or having completed a quest). This is actually a perfectly reasonable way to script dialogue and has been a widespread standard since even Planescape Torment. And it matches perfectly with believable dialogue.
1. You convinced me to not try and kill you and your party. 2. Now convince me to join your fight against the big bad. 3. Now convince me to also give up some item or gold in support of this. Or dozens of other easily imaginable permutations.
Is that actually what the conversations are like in BG3 though?
We're not talking other games, we're talking BG3 and how they are implementing multiple checks.
Checks that are pass/fail entirely dependant on your skills. THAT'S the rub. BG3's non combat paths aren't "challengeing" they are random.
I've been meaning to reply to some of your (and other users) points, but this one I can more quickly sum up: in the scenario I played, the succeeding* checks used the same skill.
* using succeeding to mean the checks next in the dialogue branch after making a successful check
Maybe it´s because I´m used to Tabletop, where any roll is definite, but I do not really get what´s the problem with failing a roll in a videogame. You can just reload infinite times, unlike in PNP.
When I play a CRPG videogame or a roleplaying game I expect to have the chance to fail and die or to achieve success against difficult odds, to have unexpected results in the same situation; because if not, books usually have more developed stories, I do not need a videogame IMHO.
Yeah, that´s what you can expect from any game based in a D20 ruleset. The chances of success failing are high ( 1 to 20 is a wide difference). There are games that are even worse, using a d100, like Warhammer, Pillars of eternity and stuff. If you play one that´s what you get. If you want foreseeable outcomes you may want to try another game, not D20 games.
It´s like playing poker but also asking to choose the cards in your hand instead of the ones are given to you randomly so you would know beforehand how are you going to play. It´s unlikely they allow it because it´s a game of luck.
If you want sure bets, you simply play chess, not poker.
The problem with BG3 (and honestly in 5th edition D&D I think) luck is more decisive than character skill. It's one thing if even a skilled Diplomat has a chance to fail in a difficult negotiation - the problem with the skill system is that it doesn't really have automatic successes for tasks that should be routine for your character.
In Poker you are only able to discard your hand a limited number of times. You are limited by the hand you have, the same way you are limited by how good is your character at doing something and how difficult is the task you have to make. You have more chances to win with a repoker than with a single pair, but you may lose a game with a full house or win with a pair. You never know.
It averages if you play different games in the dozens, but not in the same game. Same in a D20
You may fail in to hit in one round but if you are fighting for 100 rounds in average you will succeed, even more if you are good at fighting. Same if you repeat the same conversation 100 times.
D20 is made in a way that every point of difference it´s 5% chance of success. If you need a 10 you have 55% if you need a 2 you have 95%. If you need a 1 you have 100%. Advantage improves your chances. There are also many ways to get advantage or to improve your chances, like spells, feats, etc.
in fact, if you follow probability law it´s harder to fail than to have success in flat checks, but you always have the chance to fail.
It has. You automatically succeed at jumping, make an impression in a neutral creature, casting a spell (usually), running, sheath and unsheath your weapon or nock an arrow in your bow; react swiftly to make an opportunity attack, attack and move without tripping yourself, take something from your backpack in the middle of a fight, operate a lever in the middle of combat, pushing someone that is not aware of you, etc.
A normal person would never do that without putting some effort (if they could make it at all).
I think we are so used to play with superhuman characters that we think not being able to destroy a rock in one hit or intimidate a demon into submission at the first try is a failure.
For example, PS: T has a wisdom check (24, I think) as an option to bypass the final battle. I feel giving the Wis 24 character a 20% chance to fail and a Wis 15 character a 50% chance to succeed would make the character building less impactful and the game worse - but this is exaactly how it would work in BG3.
As for destroying a rock: if I am playing a half-orc berserker wearing a Girdle of Giant Strength - yes, I should be able to do it automatically.
It's true that many of these feats are superhuman and that you should not able to do it easily - but the point is that with the skill system the above mentioned half-orc can easily fail while the Str 10 mage could very well succeed.
Or to convince the demon: it's ok that you don't auto-succeed, but if the silver tongued bard has a 60% chance then the barely literate Barbarian shouldn't have a 30% chance, but should automatically fail.
The system works in P&P since in those situation the DM is likely to exercise some discretion about whom he allows a roll in the first place, but in a computer game this simply doesn't work as well as the PS:T approach.
I get that If your character is uberstrong or supersmart or charismatic you want to feel that it shows ingame so you can do something others can without failure, and I respect that, but I personally do not particularly care for that.
I prefer to have a chance of success if I happen to have a character below 24 wisdom to do the same or a chance for a ubercharacter to fail. It seems bg3 uses the latter.
Poe1, Poe2, BG1, BG2, Planescape...
"Swords, not words!"
So, it's proven, avoiding combat and aiming for diplomatic solutions is officially against the tradition of the old BG games
The absolutism of this is very off-putting for me. My very, very, very wise 23 wisdom character apparently lacks that tiny spark of insight and must now engage in a battle to the death. I dont see this as good design necessarily. Arbitrary thresholds and limitations are precisely that: Arbitrary requirements that gate you out of ways to play the game.
You may not love that my Barbarian has even a 30% chance to avoid combat diplomatically - but I appreciate even having the *chance* to do something that my character may want to do.
But Kingmaker has a number of checks that, at least by the midgame, you can build a party so that many checks are nearly guaranteed. They still exist with a d20 roll, but the possible modifiers you can achieve can bump up many of the rolls to a guarantee. By the same token, even within the same area, several other checks were within the range of possible failure. And it was very difficult to build your party or main character in such a way as to guarantee *every* check even if you could guarantee some types.
Man, if that was the best, I'd hate to see anything less than that based on my experience with that game.
I think you're hung up on one small point about the skill checks, the perception checks on the map.
Larian probably shouldn't have advertised the ability to do so then. People act like any kind of criticism is a personal attack and must immiediately be stomped out.
According to @kanisatha , the Larian forums are actually OPEN to criticism. While here, its some kind of sacred cow.
I´ve been in larian forums since Divinity ego dragonis and I can assure you it´s the same here and there.
In fact I´ve seen several posts of kanisatha there claiming they wer censoring him and the rtwp vs TB debate in Larian forums because they transfer any discussion about that topic to the proper thread instead of being discussed in several unrelated topics.
https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=707710#Post707710
I am positively surprised that he changed his mind about the Larian forums. IIRC his words were something alongside the lines of that being a forum full of zealots, fanboys and cheerleaders.
Good thing it seems it´s not the case anymore for him, it seems. That said, I´ve never seen any particular bias in this forum, there are people that like it, people that don´t. Some more vocal than others, but that´s it.
The treatment of the free expression of opinions looks the same to me.
I get what you're saying here. One thing I'll say in praise of PoE are the passive checks done on some stat or disposition or other criteria that happen throughout dialogues and other encounters. These things felt enough out of the player's control that there was some drama to them.
My problem were the choice-triggered checks. Which, outside of a few forced encounters, could be gamed by simply waiting long enough to level up a stat or boost up a disposition. It sucked a great deal of drama out of encounters, because as a player you knew that if you simply met some threshold, boom, you'd solve that step of the quest. This is even more true of Deadfire which had a great deal more latitude in the path a player could take. I think a great example of this is how much easier it is to solve the Hasongo section if you farmed much of the side content versus if you go directly there.
Combat is interesting because dice rolls contain uncertainty in the outcome. Even though there also exists way to build your character, or use certain skills that can create a few guaranteed moves within the space of combat. Having a non-combat checks system that mimics this dynamic is imo the best way to go. It's notable that the recent XCOM, a strategy game loved by many RPG fans, mimics this guaranteed moves + random moves dynamic.
The problem with 5th edition that the randomness is too much for a cRPG without a real DM. Of course this is an opinion (mine), but from past discussions on RPG design I feel that people who desire random rolls on major choices/events are a minority.
People are fine with trying to get the quest giver to give you a bigger reward coming down to a roll, but something like:
Not really.