There is a difference between ‘cheese tactics’ that players stumble upon while playing the game, and cheese tactics that are deliberately added to the game and promoted by by the development team as ‘the way to play.’
Comparing the two is very disingenuous to the actual argument being put forth.
Do I expect a player to figure out clever ways to use the games system to get the best synergy outcome out of encounters? Yes.
Do I want developers to put an exploding barrel right beside a enemy that will do more damage than my player would possibly be able to do without it? No.
It's called a different game design. There are games for everyone, in each genre, and this one is not an exception.
Pillars of Eternity had such design decisions as: limited camping supplies (only 2 at the hard difficulty), the inability to change potions and food in the quick slots during combat, etc. All of this was designed so that the player tried to manage limited resources. There were also such decisions as an inability to retreat from combat which required a lot of meta-gaming for survivability.
Pathfinder: Kingmaker had such design decisions as: limited timelines for the main quest, stronghold events tied to days and weeks, advanced camping system. All of this was designed so that the player tried to manage limited resources. There were also such decisions as a very difficult way to retreat from combat which required a lot of meta-gaming for survivability.
Larian games have a different game design. They give you the tools and don't limit the player to what the player wants to use. They make you creative.
I always compare it to playing BG with full SCS. Because that is how I've been playing original BG for the last 10 years+ - with full difficulty-enhancing mods. This is why I have never had any trouble with Larian games and in fact, love them.
Realism doesn't matter: Larian games offer combat which is supposed to be a challenge for you as the player. Be it normal difficulty, or Tactician, everyone will have an option to choose their own setting.
I played through BG3 Early Access last year with resting only twice (!). My party consisted of a ranger, Shadowheart, Gale, Lae'zel. So my wizard only rested twice to renew his spells. I didn't use any odd tactics, I just played to survive.
It doesn't require a lot of effort to figure out how to overcome BG3 challenges (at least, in Early Access and with this difficulty), and it doesn't require you to constantly use fire surfaces. In fact, I tried not to use any barrels at all. But I used shove and jump, and I loved it. These actions provided so many possibilities. You can retreat from fights, you can come back later and set up traps for your enemies.
BG3 is an amazing game. It doesn't only provide different ways to solve the combat challenge, it gives you multiple ways to RP and pick different options in quests. It's an improvement over the game I enjoyed a lot - D:OS 2 in terms of variability.
It's all about creativity. I understand other people don't like that. But it's fine - there are games for your tastes, and PoE and P:K are good alternatives. And soon the new Pathfinder game will be released - which will follow the game design of the first game.
I admire this game design and really, it's the one thing that won me over day 1 when I first tried Divinity: Original Sin 2. And I would be VERY disappointed if one day that design changes. But it won't - as the studio has their creativity, understanding of how to make games and how to approach the player. This is how you get followers, fans, people who will want to try your new creations. It's a style.
This is why people like game developers and wait for their next projects. If you like sci-fi, Twin Peaks, paradoxes, you play Remedy games. If you like stealth, exploration, history and mythology, you play Ubisoft Assassin Creed games. If you like old-school party RPGs with limited resources and lots and lots of restrictions and complex systems, you play Owlcat games. If you like experiments, creativity, dialogue choices, you play Larian games. If you like complex stories and characters resembling real-life people, you play CDPR games. And you know what? You can like all that, and play all those games (just as I do).
I remember how I liked different spell combinations in Dragon Age: Origins. It was so cool. Larian's use of magic reminds me of that, it's an upgrade, an evolution.
It doesn't mean I miss it in other games: I play them as per the intended design.
There is a difference between ‘cheese tactics’ that players stumble upon while playing the game, and cheese tactics that are deliberately added to the game and promoted by by the development team as ‘the way to play.’
Comparing the two is very disingenuous to the actual argument being put forth.
Do I expect a player to figure out clever ways to use the games system to get the best synergy outcome out of encounters? Yes.
Do I want developers to put an exploding barrel right beside a enemy that will do more damage than my player would possibly be able to do without it? No.
I'm not sure I really follow this argument.
First - is it "cheese" if the development team has put it into the game as an intention use of mechanics? Seems to me that broadly and generally, the definition of cheese is an unintentional use of mechanics to defeat or conquer an otherwise challenging obstacle (Doesnt HAVE to be challenging, but usually is. Else, why cheese?).
Second - it more or less sounds like you think it is better game design to beat an encounter by entering and exiting the area a lich is in during each cast so every spell is wasted ("Do I expect a player to figure out clever ways to use the games system to get the best synergy outcome out of encounters? Yes") rather than using an environmental element to help defeat a challenging encounter(Do I want developers to put an exploding barrel right beside a enemy that will do more damage than my player would possibly be able to do without it? No.). If we replace the boring barrel with a column of the house that caves in the roof, then we have a puzzle element along with environmental story telling. Maybe I misunderstood you, though - Sorry, if so.
As someone who has spent a LONG time DMing games - I'd much rather introduce environmental/puzzle mechanics to alter the nature of a fight than have my plays exploit some obscure rule to make a fight rote and uninteresting.
IMO, no genre is more susceptible to cheese than the RPG genre. These are, for the most part, massive games with almost unlimited tactical options, spells and systems. I mean, where do we begin?? Wands of Monster Summoning in BG1. The way summons are both almost necessary and sort of trivialize aspects of Legacy of Bhaal and Heart of Fury. You wanna break Temple of Elemental Evil, invest heavily in crafting. You can become a god in Morrowind eventually regardless, but you can do so with Alchemy in about two hours. I can make a spell in Oblivion for almost no relative cost that turns me invisible for 2 seconds, paralyses the target for two seconds, and does minimal shock damage that has such a low magicka cost that you can spam it basically forever and keep most enemies stun-locked and blind to your presence. In Daggerfall, I recently followed a guide picking your own strengths and weaknesses in the custom class feature that makes you nearly immune to all types of magic except Frost, which you can negate by playing a Nord. These are just the most obvious examples.
You are either missing the point or choosing to not engage the actual point I and some others are making here. Everything you bring up here is NOT cheese the way I am talking about "Larian cheese." Why? Because everything here (at least the D&D examples) is fully in line with D&D 2e rules. None of these things violate D&D rules. But in BG3, one can use their bonus action to jump over the head of their (even orc-sized) enemy, land perfectly behind the enemy, and then backstab the enemy for massive damage. No restrictions based on race or class. No skill checks. No saves. This is automatic, and can be repeated again and again whenever, wherever, and however often as you want. Ditto for shoving someone off an elevation, or picking up and throwing someone across the room, or bombarding someone with unlimited fire arrows where even if the arrow misses it sets the ground on fire dealing 2d4 automatic damage. No save.
Show me where any of this is possible within D&D 5e rules? If I tried to pull any of this in a TT D&D game, my DM and fellow players would laugh me out of the game.
IMO, no genre is more susceptible to cheese than the RPG genre. These are, for the most part, massive games with almost unlimited tactical options, spells and systems. I mean, where do we begin?? Wands of Monster Summoning in BG1. The way summons are both almost necessary and sort of trivialize aspects of Legacy of Bhaal and Heart of Fury. You wanna break Temple of Elemental Evil, invest heavily in crafting. You can become a god in Morrowind eventually regardless, but you can do so with Alchemy in about two hours. I can make a spell in Oblivion for almost no relative cost that turns me invisible for 2 seconds, paralyses the target for two seconds, and does minimal shock damage that has such a low magicka cost that you can spam it basically forever and keep most enemies stun-locked and blind to your presence. In Daggerfall, I recently followed a guide picking your own strengths and weaknesses in the custom class feature that makes you nearly immune to all types of magic except Frost, which you can negate by playing a Nord. These are just the most obvious examples.
You are either missing the point or choosing to not engage the actual point I and some others are making here. Everything you bring up here is NOT cheese the way I am talking about "Larian cheese." Why? Because everything here (at least the D&D examples) is fully in line with D&D 2e rules. None of these things violate D&D rules. But in BG3, one can use their bonus action to jump over the head of their (even orc-sized) enemy, land perfectly behind the enemy, and then backstab the enemy for massive damage. No restrictions based on race or class. No skill checks. No saves. This is automatic, and can be repeated again and again whenever, wherever, and however often as you want. Ditto for shoving someone off an elevation, or picking up and throwing someone across the room, or bombarding someone with unlimited fire arrows where even if the arrow misses it sets the ground on fire dealing 2d4 automatic damage. No save.
Show me where any of this is possible within D&D 5e rules? If I tried to pull any of this in a TT D&D game, my DM and fellow players would laugh me out of the game.
My answer is they are making a game based on 5E rules and altering them in a way that best fits playing a video game by yourself rather than sitting at a table with 4 or 5 people. If you want to argue that Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 are more faithful adaptations of the 2E ruleset than Baldur's Gate 3 is of 5E then I'm not here to argue with you. I don't think the original games are a success as a result of being faithful to rules of 2E, I think they're a success because of how well it replicates the "feel" of it. I'm not particularly interested in basing how I feel about a single-player, party-based RPG by opening my 5E rulebook and checking off boxes of what is and isn't accurate on screen.
There is a difference between ‘cheese tactics’ that players stumble upon while playing the game, and cheese tactics that are deliberately added to the game and promoted by by the development team as ‘the way to play.’
Comparing the two is very disingenuous to the actual argument being put forth.
Do I expect a player to figure out clever ways to use the games system to get the best synergy outcome out of encounters? Yes.
Do I want developers to put an exploding barrel right beside a enemy that will do more damage than my player would possibly be able to do without it? No.
I'm not sure I really follow this argument.
First - is it "cheese" if the development team has put it into the game as an intention use of mechanics? Seems to me that broadly and generally, the definition of cheese is an unintentional use of mechanics to defeat or conquer an otherwise challenging obstacle (Doesnt HAVE to be challenging, but usually is. Else, why cheese?).
Second - it more or less sounds like you think it is better game design to beat an encounter by entering and exiting the area a lich is in during each cast so every spell is wasted ("Do I expect a player to figure out clever ways to use the games system to get the best synergy outcome out of encounters? Yes") rather than using an environmental element to help defeat a challenging encounter(Do I want developers to put an exploding barrel right beside a enemy that will do more damage than my player would possibly be able to do without it? No.). If we replace the boring barrel with a column of the house that caves in the roof, then we have a puzzle element along with environmental story telling. Maybe I misunderstood you, though - Sorry, if so.
As someone who has spent a LONG time DMing games - I'd much rather introduce environmental/puzzle mechanics to alter the nature of a fight than have my plays exploit some obscure rule to make a fight rote and uninteresting.
I mean, the "oil barrel next to an encounter that requires massive fire damage" is also a HEAVILY prevalent issue in the original games. There is a captain handing out fire arrows right before you take on trolls in de'Arnise Keep. The Shield of Balduran and two Scrolls of Protection from Magic are just being sold in shop in a city that has beholders in the sewers and a lich behind a wall in an inn. There are a couple wooden stakes just lying around a vampire lair for you to pick up. In Icewind Dale, a lich is keeping his phylactery across the hallway. It's so frequent that there is an entire component of SCS that removes these items from where they are in the original game.
But most games that are considered VERY well designed do similar things. Many boss fights in the Dark Souls Trilogy have SOME item or consumable very near the fog gate that could be considered highly useful to defeating that particular boss.
I mean the captain knows you are going to fight trolls - that part makes sense. Of course he wants to help you succeed.
The Shield of Balduran is from a weird collector edition bonus, I wouldn't count that at all - especially since you are equally likely to first encounter them in the Underdark.
The wooden stakes are a good example though. But it's less intrusive than exploding barrels. All the time.
I mean the captain knows you are going to fight trolls - that part makes sense. Of course he wants to help you succeed.
The Shield of Balduran is from a weird collector edition bonus, I wouldn't count that at all - especially since you are equally likely to first encounter them in the Underdark.
The wooden stakes are a good example though. But it's less intrusive than exploding barrels. All the time.
My overall point is I don't think there is anything wrong with ANY of it in any of these games. I really did not know how much some people hate the elemental damage aspects of the terrain and environment in D:OS until discussing BG3 on this forum. At the time the first game came out I thought it was an absolutely novel take on the genre and something that should be praised. Mind you, the majority HERE may not care for it, but the user and player reviews of those two games kinda speak for themselves. You can't really expect them to reverse course when 85% of people on Steam think their last two efforts have been the gold standard for the genre. A bakery doesn't change the recipe for it's best-selling pie just because they got a new logo for the sign outside.
I mean, the "oil barrel next to an encounter that requires massive fire damage" is also a HEAVILY prevalent issue in the original games. There is a captain handing out fire arrows right before you take on trolls in de'Arnise Keep. The Shield of Balduran and two Scrolls of Protection from Magic are just being sold in shop in a city that has beholders in the sewers and a lich behind a wall in an inn. There are a couple wooden stakes just lying around a vampire lair for you to pick up. In Icewind Dale, a lich is keeping his phylactery across the hallway. It's so frequent that there is an entire component of SCS that removes these items from where they are in the original game.
But most games that are considered VERY well designed do similar things. Many boss fights in the Dark Souls Trilogy have SOME item or consumable very near the fog gate that could be considered highly useful to defeating that particular boss.
I mean the captain knows you are going to fight trolls - that part makes sense. Of course he wants to help you succeed.
The Shield of Balduran is from a weird collector edition bonus, I wouldn't count that at all - especially since you are equally likely to first encounter them in the Underdark.
The wooden stakes are a good example though. But it's less intrusive than exploding barrels. All the time.
I hadnt thought of it like that, but the magical ammo you get in a bunch of places right before fighting enemies that require magic to hit (say, the planar prison in BG2) are also simiarish.
I do agree that barrels are the basest form of it though. It's uninspired to the nth degree.
You are either missing the point or choosing to not engage the actual point I and some others are making here. Everything you bring up here is NOT cheese the way I am talking about "Larian cheese." Why? Because everything here (at least the D&D examples) is fully in line with D&D 2e rules.
There are plenty of other mechanics present in BG1 and 2 which do not have equivalencies in 2e D&D. Such as HLAs, the way the Monk works within the game. You can cast raise dead on an elven character, etc.
BG1 and 2 are not fully faithful to 2e. Nor would I want them to be, as that rule set doesnt translate perfectly to a CRPG. I wont hold BG3 to a standard that I wont hold BG1 or 2 or any other game to. Personally.
As other people have said, the fact that the game gives you options that can nullify some of the combat isn't necessarily bad. And I think it's a fair point to say that you can avoid those options of you don't like them. A pretty good analogy is pre-buffing in the BG series. You can certainly beat the unmodded BG games without pre-buffing before combats. You also have complete and total freedom to do so. Even freedom to do stuff like lay traps right at the feet of someone you're about to hostile. This isn't even an abuse of the game engine or rule implementation. It's just an option that you have because of no limitations on spellcasting.
TBH, I fail to see how this is any different than Larian adding a few combat tricks like shove. At least that move seems to involve something of a risk-reward setup. You have to move close to the target, and it's not always going to be an option. Again, I just don't see how this is more cheesy than the original games. When taken as a whole, the new systems, and their implementation still seems like it produces less cheese over the course of the game.
There is a difference between ‘cheese tactics’ that players stumble upon while playing the game, and cheese tactics that are deliberately added to the game and promoted by by the development team as ‘the way to play.’
Comparing the two is very disingenuous to the actual argument being put forth.
Do I expect a player to figure out clever ways to use the games system to get the best synergy outcome out of encounters? Yes.
Do I want developers to put an exploding barrel right beside a enemy that will do more damage than my player would possibly be able to do without it? No.
I'm not sure I really follow this argument.
First - is it "cheese" if the development team has put it into the game as an intention use of mechanics? Seems to me that broadly and generally, the definition of cheese is an unintentional use of mechanics to defeat or conquer an otherwise challenging obstacle (Doesnt HAVE to be challenging, but usually is. Else, why cheese?).
Second - it more or less sounds like you think it is better game design to beat an encounter by entering and exiting the area a lich is in during each cast so every spell is wasted ("Do I expect a player to figure out clever ways to use the games system to get the best synergy outcome out of encounters? Yes") rather than using an environmental element to help defeat a challenging encounter(Do I want developers to put an exploding barrel right beside a enemy that will do more damage than my player would possibly be able to do without it? No.). If we replace the boring barrel with a column of the house that caves in the roof, then we have a puzzle element along with environmental story telling. Maybe I misunderstood you, though - Sorry, if so.
As someone who has spent a LONG time DMing games - I'd much rather introduce environmental/puzzle mechanics to alter the nature of a fight than have my plays exploit some obscure rule to make a fight rote and uninteresting.
Well I am following your whataboutism argument regarding a game released over a two decades ago just fine and don't see how it adds to the conversation.
But let me clarify things regarding my post for you.
your First concern regarding cheese. You can call it semantics if you want. I am not here to debate what each definition means. It can be easily clarified as 'poor game design that is unrewarding for players.'
Now let me give you an example with Dragon Age Origins and the Brood Mother boss fight. When I first defeated that boss, I personally had a huge sense of accomplishment. The fight was tough, but I figured out the ideal set up for my characters and was able to defeat it.
Now imagine that fight had a cave in mechanism tied into it where the player could target the rocks above its head to trigger an avalanche that either does an insane amount of damage or kills her out right. Imagine any character, regardless of skill sets would be able to trigger that rock slide. The fight would lose a lot of its challenge and the gimmick every time would be to shoot the stones. That, like exploding barrels, cheapens the fight and makes it poor level / encounter design.
Your second point:
Do not put words in my mouth. The leaving the room when a lich casting a spell was a limitation at the time AND also following the game mechanics that the game was designed upon. The caster needs to have its target in sight or the spell fizzle and is wasted. Do I think spellcasters should have followed the retreating party - yes. They didn't because of mechanical or AI limitations, and this tactic did not work on every spellcaster.
But lets take your column example. Can anyone knock down the column? Does a character have to make any sort of checks to determine if that column is actually there for support? Do all characters in the vicinity makes a save to see if they are able to get out of the way?
Lets use a barrel example. How does the character know what is in the barrel? Do they have to make a perception or spot check? How many hit points does the barrel have? What's the barrel's AC? Is it possible for the player to miss barrel or hit the metal band(s) that hold the barrel together? Does the enemy get to make a perception check to realize that the player is targeting the barrel and will remove itself from its vicinity?
There is a difference between ‘cheese tactics’ that players stumble upon while playing the game, and cheese tactics that are deliberately added to the game and promoted by by the development team as ‘the way to play.’
Comparing the two is very disingenuous to the actual argument being put forth.
Do I expect a player to figure out clever ways to use the games system to get the best synergy outcome out of encounters? Yes.
Do I want developers to put an exploding barrel right beside a enemy that will do more damage than my player would possibly be able to do without it? No.
I'm not sure I really follow this argument.
First - is it "cheese" if the development team has put it into the game as an intention use of mechanics? Seems to me that broadly and generally, the definition of cheese is an unintentional use of mechanics to defeat or conquer an otherwise challenging obstacle (Doesnt HAVE to be challenging, but usually is. Else, why cheese?).
Second - it more or less sounds like you think it is better game design to beat an encounter by entering and exiting the area a lich is in during each cast so every spell is wasted ("Do I expect a player to figure out clever ways to use the games system to get the best synergy outcome out of encounters? Yes") rather than using an environmental element to help defeat a challenging encounter(Do I want developers to put an exploding barrel right beside a enemy that will do more damage than my player would possibly be able to do without it? No.). If we replace the boring barrel with a column of the house that caves in the roof, then we have a puzzle element along with environmental story telling. Maybe I misunderstood you, though - Sorry, if so.
As someone who has spent a LONG time DMing games - I'd much rather introduce environmental/puzzle mechanics to alter the nature of a fight than have my plays exploit some obscure rule to make a fight rote and uninteresting.
Well I am following your whataboutism argument regarding a game released over a two decades ago just fine and don't see how it adds to the conversation.
But let me clarify things regarding my post for you.
your First concern regarding cheese. You can call it semantics if you want. I am not here to debate what each definition means. It can be easily clarified as 'poor game design that is unrewarding for players.'
Now let me give you an example with Dragon Age Origins and the Brood Mother boss fight. When I first defeated that boss, I personally had a huge sense of accomplishment. The fight was tough, but I figured out the ideal set up for my characters and was able to defeat it.
Now imagine that fight had a cave in mechanism tied into it where the player could target the rocks above its head to trigger an avalanche that either does an insane amount of damage or kills her out right. Imagine any character, regardless of skill sets would be able to trigger that rock slide. The fight would lose a lot of its challenge and the gimmick every time would be to shoot the stones. That, like exploding barrels, cheapens the fight and makes it poor level / encounter design.
Your second point:
Do not put words in my mouth. The leaving the room when a lich casting a spell was a limitation at the time AND also following the game mechanics that the game was designed upon. The caster needs to have its target in sight or the spell fizzle and is wasted. Do I think spellcasters should have followed the retreating party - yes. They didn't because of mechanical or AI limitations, and this tactic did not work on every spellcaster.
But lets take your column example. Can anyone knock down the column? Does a character have to make any sort of checks to determine if that column is actually there for support? Do all characters in the vicinity makes a save to see if they are able to get out of the way?
Lets use a barrel example. How does the character know what is in the barrel? Do they have to make a perception or spot check? How many hit points does the barrel have? What's the barrel's AC? Is it possible for the player to miss barrel or hit the metal band(s) that hold the barrel together? Does the enemy get to make a perception check to realize that the player is targeting the barrel and will remove itself from its vicinity?
Cool. First\- It isnt whataboutism. You rolled up into a conversation that included, among other things, me discussing player agency. I used an example to highlight my thinking(Potions), as it relates to a game that we've all probably played on here. Not whataboutism. Sorry.
Second - I was repeating your argument back to you using a reference from one of my earlier posts. I wasnt putting words in your mouth, I even offered you the courtesy of apologizing if I misunderstood you. Chill.
To answer your question: Yeah - there will be a skill check to knock down the column. Maybe it's in a dilapidated house. Maybe the house is in poor condition and knocking down the column will bring the house down. This is all fairly perfunctory detail that would be offered at the table.
One argument that I'll never fully understand relates to player agency and their dissatisfaction with even being presented an option they find unacceptable.
Let's use the shove mechanic since it was mentioned above. 5e is modularized so there is not explicit rule dealing with the exact nature of what a "shove" might entail(if memory serves), but the pieces of the mechanic are present so that if my player said to me (as the DM) "I want to shove that enemy" - it's not hard for me to come up with rules for that on the spot.
If you dont like the implementation of that rule, then the simplest and easiest approach is: Dont shove anyone. Yeah. You might occasionally be shoved by an enemy, but the intrusiveness of saying "I dont think any player who ever wants to shove anyone else should be allowed to do that" vs "Shoving is allowed. You can shove (or not shove) if you want " leans SHARPLY towards to the former than the latter.
There are plenty of rules/mechanics/ideas I dislike in CRGPS (including BG). I almost never use potions because I find them to be usually OP and a dime a dozen. I would never say to Bioware/Beamdog "Please remove all potions. I dont like them".
Dont like consumables. Dont use them. Dont want explosive barrels, never set them off. Dont like shoving/jumping/backstabs - dont do them.
I know some people are upset at how easy it is to get advantage. I think that's a tuning thing and not some kind of special formula of Larians. It wasnt a thing in DO:S, so I dont think there's any reason to expect it to be a fundamental part of the formula.
A more pertinent example would be your player, wildshaped into a badger, saying "I want to use the badger's ability to tunnel through the ground to dig through the air over to that platform over there" and you letting him do that.
It's pretty obvious of you watch him playing the game that Swen enjoys cheesing his way through games and that preference is clearly reflected in the game design. He wants every boss to be beatable by a single push, to be able to move around freely in stealth for any length of time while the enemy is frozen in time because they're in TB mode and you're not, and so on, because that is the kind of thing he thinks is clever.
By the way, the part about shoves that people usually complain about isn't that you can shove people. It's that shoving requires only a bonus action while in 5e it uses up an attack action (and requires beating the enemy in an opposed STR check). Then there's also the separate issue that nearly every single important fight is shaped to let you finish the boss with a single "Thunderwave-them-into-the-abyss" move. Because that is a recurring gimmick of BG3's design.
Oh, and that "just don't use them" argument is so trite and overstated. Yes, I can not use them. That doesn't change the fact that the game is designed with using these features in mind. Enemies will still use some of them against you, too, and that has a huge impact on how you have to play the game. I can choose not to play the game too, but I want to play this game -- I want them to change these things because I want the game to be better so that I'll enjoy playing the game more.
This is when I 'retuned' into the thread as I respect scriver's opinion on matters even if I don't always fully agree with him.
His line of "It's pretty obvious of you watch him playing the game that Swen enjoys cheesing his way through games and that preference is clearly reflected in the game design," is one, however I fully agree with and it's what first peaked my curiosity on the conversation.
Oh, and that "just don't use them" argument is so trite and overstated. Yes, I can not use them. That doesn't change the fact that the game is designed with using these features in mind. Enemies will still use some of them against you, too, and that has a huge impact on how you have to play the game. I can choose not to play the game too, but I want to play this game -- I want them to change these things because I want the game to be better so that I'll enjoy playing the game more.
I'll address only this issue because the rest of what you've posted is something that tuning a game in Early Access can fix (which has fixed plenty of other things you've complained about in the past - perhaps not at the speed you want, but that's a "you" issue and not a development issue for a game that hasnt been finished yet).
You've complained about cheese - which by its very definition is a way to use mechanics in an unintended way to beat an otherwise more challenging encounter - and then attempted to argue that it is the "expected" way to play. Cheese of course, by definition, is not how you're expected to play.
I can cheese most challenging fights in BG1 and 2 by entering and leaving rooms/screens during spell casts, as it wastes the cast of the enemy. I can leave the room and wait for their buffs to expire one by one, and then re-enter. That's cheese - it's not an intended way to play the game. I also dont complain on forums that I have this ability - either I abuse it and accept that's how I play the game, or dont use it and the game is played as intended.
If you dont like one hit boss fights because you've found a cheesy strat, it's entirely on you not to use your cheese strat to trivialize the boss fight. Unless I am mistaken, there are no "shove or be shoved" one hit kill for you or the boss encounters in the game... so you're never obligated to do the thing you're complaining about.
Your complaints appear to be the equivalent of have the option to cheat, and being upset because you cannot stop yourself from doing so. That's entirely your responsibility and not someone else's.
Your post directly after it, starts arguing the semantics of the word 'cheese' and what it means to you, even though those you are discussing this with explained what they meant when they said 'cheese' a few posts prior:
"The terms Larian cheese or cheesy gimmicks is being used to talk about Larian's use of such things as push, shove, height advantages, backstab advantages, exploding barrels, elemental surfaces, and excessive availability and free usage of overpowered consumables, all things that are not part of D&D 5e.
While bringing up how you personally 'cheese' in your definition a game that is over two decades old, completely ignoring his point on the Shove mechanic being used in the game not matching 5e which this game should be based off of.
So ya, cool. I remember why I stopped following this thread to begin with.
OH and thank you so much for offering me the courtesy of apologizing to you. I won't.
To answer your question: Yeah - there will be a skill check to knock down the column. Maybe it's in a dilapidated house. Maybe the house is in poor condition and knocking down the column will bring the house down. This is all fairly perfunctory detail that would be offered at the table.
Now, is there checks in the game for things like 'Shove' (both for success and to prevent), for any environmental effects the player can take advantage of (such as spot or perception to determine what an item will do if attacked). If the answer is 'no,' then the game isn't living up to the spirit of D&D and contradicts a statement Sven made in the first AMA where he said "We will add skill checks where it makes sense. Can you use this? Are you strong enough to lift this?"
There is like misunderstanding after misunderstanding here. Let me help.
First
Your post directly after it, starts arguing the semantics of the word 'cheese' and what it means to you, even though those you are discussing this with explained what they meant when they said 'cheese' a few posts prior:
Coincidentally, you omitted the section about one shotting challenging encounters and bosses using the shove mechanic. which is a different type of cheese and not a complaint about action economy or the glib nature of some larian mechanics. Hence why the conversation seemed relevant to me.
Second - here's another misunderstanding, your quote:
While bringing up how you personally 'cheese' in your definition a game that is over two decades old, completely ignoring his point on the Shove mechanic being used in the game not matching 5e which this game should be based off of.
My response (found in the very response you spoilered):
I'll address only this issue because the rest of what you've posted is something that tuning a game in Early Access can fix (which has fixed plenty of other things you've complained about in the past - perhaps not at the speed you want, but that's a "you" issue and not a development issue for a game that hasnt been finished yet).
So. You see, I dont see the value in worrying about the shove mechanic being a bonus action rather than a full action simply because... that might changed in a month or two, or before release. So from a game development sense, it doesnt really matter to me. My response was literally in the quote you provided, after which you proclaimed that I "completely ignored" it.
Third
So ya, cool. I remember why I stopped following this thread to begin with.
OH and thank you so much for offering me the courtesy of apologizing to you. I won't.
Once again, you seemed to have misunderstood what I said. I was apologizing to you if I mischaracterized your position (which, I dont really think I did even if those arent the words you would have used). Here, I can grab that quote and bold that part for you too:
Second - it more or less sounds like you think it is better game design to beat an encounter by entering and exiting the area a lich is in during each cast so every spell is wasted ("Do I expect a player to figure out clever ways to use the games system to get the best synergy outcome out of encounters? Yes") rather than using an environmental element to help defeat a challenging encounter(Do I want developers to put an exploding barrel right beside a enemy that will do more damage than my player would possibly be able to do without it? No.). If we replace the boring barrel with a column of the house that caves in the roof, then we have a puzzle element along with environmental story telling. Maybe I misunderstood you, though - Sorry, if so.
IMO, no genre is more susceptible to cheese than the RPG genre. These are, for the most part, massive games with almost unlimited tactical options, spells and systems. I mean, where do we begin?? Wands of Monster Summoning in BG1. The way summons are both almost necessary and sort of trivialize aspects of Legacy of Bhaal and Heart of Fury. You wanna break Temple of Elemental Evil, invest heavily in crafting. You can become a god in Morrowind eventually regardless, but you can do so with Alchemy in about two hours. I can make a spell in Oblivion for almost no relative cost that turns me invisible for 2 seconds, paralyses the target for two seconds, and does minimal shock damage that has such a low magicka cost that you can spam it basically forever and keep most enemies stun-locked and blind to your presence. In Daggerfall, I recently followed a guide picking your own strengths and weaknesses in the custom class feature that makes you nearly immune to all types of magic except Frost, which you can negate by playing a Nord. These are just the most obvious examples.
You are either missing the point or choosing to not engage the actual point I and some others are making here. Everything you bring up here is NOT cheese the way I am talking about "Larian cheese." Why? Because everything here (at least the D&D examples) is fully in line with D&D 2e rules. None of these things violate D&D rules. But in BG3, one can use their bonus action to jump over the head of their (even orc-sized) enemy, land perfectly behind the enemy, and then backstab the enemy for massive damage. No restrictions based on race or class. No skill checks. No saves. This is automatic, and can be repeated again and again whenever, wherever, and however often as you want. Ditto for shoving someone off an elevation, or picking up and throwing someone across the room, or bombarding someone with unlimited fire arrows where even if the arrow misses it sets the ground on fire dealing 2d4 automatic damage. No save.
Show me where any of this is possible within D&D 5e rules? If I tried to pull any of this in a TT D&D game, my DM and fellow players would laugh me out of the game.
My answer is they are making a game based on 5E rules and altering them in a way that best fits playing a video game by yourself rather than sitting at a table with 4 or 5 people. If you want to argue that Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 are more faithful adaptations of the 2E ruleset than Baldur's Gate 3 is of 5E then I'm not here to argue with you. I don't think the original games are a success as a result of being faithful to rules of 2E, I think they're a success because of how well it replicates the "feel" of it. I'm not particularly interested in basing how I feel about a single-player, party-based RPG by opening my 5E rulebook and checking off boxes of what is and isn't accurate on screen.
Yes that's what the (crappy) D:OS games are there for. So they should have just made D:OS3. But they chose to make a D&D game. Then it should be a D&D game.
Furthermore, again, you are talking past my point. I'm not making a case for strictly sticking to D&D rules. Far from it. What I am saying is that Hulk-jumping over your opponent, with no costs or penalties and only incredibly awesome benefits, is a CORE mechanic of the game, not an exploit or a cheat but a core mechanic that Larian has introduced into the game outside of D&D 5e rules. This core mechanic is expected by Larian to be widely used by players to win encounters, and encounters are designed for its widespread use. And this core mechanic does nothing to make the game "fit or "fun" for playing a video game. It utterly trivializes the game. It is the equivalent of a giant anvil appearing out of nowhere to fall on the coyote's head every time you need this to happen for you.
Probably should not interfere, sorry, but just that one particular thing:
"So they should have just made D:OS3. But they chose to make a D&D game. Then it should be a D&D game."
If I am not mistaken, they did not choose anything - WotC chose them to make a DnD game. Larian offered to put DnD rules on top of their own mechanics (and their own engine) and WotC accepted it. Again, afaik, all DnD video games aways change the rules (adaptation is needed) somewhat. But in this case Larian tried to make happy both - fans of DOS games and DnD players. Not that they succeeded completely - there are unhappy players on both sides, but at least some familiarity is there for everyone.
One issue with combat in Larian games I have is that I feel it is designed for you to exploit the environment and the elemental surfaces in order for you to make clever, when in most cases the fights are very much designed with them in mind. Vincke is saying that they see players defeating encounters in unexpected and ingenuous ways when most of the time those feel very much intentional to me.
All the elemental combos in D:OS are very much built into the system, they put height differences everywhere and lots of items that can be destroyed to create environmental surfaces.
In contrast, I feel the BG 2 cheese of combining Mind Slayer form and Timestop to kill enemies feels like an genuinely emergent exploit. As do other cheesy/smart strategies in Baldur's Gate like using Belm specifically as offhand to get the +1 attack on your mainhand. To generalize, I don't think the BG 2 teams designed the combat system around some of the more creative spell combinations (web and sword spider form), while I think in Larian's games those interactions all feel very intended and more hard-coded than natural. Larian's combats feel more like designed puzzles than D&D combat encounters to me.
To be clear I am more familiar with D:OS and D:OS 2 than BG3 at this point, so maybe BG 3 feels better.
Probably should not interfere, sorry, but just that one particular thing:
"So they should have just made D:OS3. But they chose to make a D&D game. Then it should be a D&D game."
If I am not mistaken, they did not choose anything - WotC chose them to make a DnD game. Larian offered to put DnD rules on top of their own mechanics (and their own engine) and WotC accepted it. Again, afaik, all DnD video games aways change the rules (adaptation is needed) somewhat. But in this case Larian tried to make happy both - fans of DOS games and DnD players. Not that they succeeded completely - there are unhappy players on both sides, but at least some familiarity is there for everyone.
Not so. Larian approached Wizards and specifically asked to make BG3. Subsequently, in their early public statements right after the reveal, they went out of their way to state that they were making a D&D game and NOT a D:OS game, and that they understand clearly that D&D is very different from D:OS, and that they were very sensitive to potential criticism that their BG3 game was just a D:OS game in D&D skin.
This seems like a semantics discussion. If a studio makes a D&D computer game the studio choose to do so, and WotC choose to license them to do so. Larian could easily have chosen to make another CRPG like D:OS 3 and WotC could easily have chosen to give the BG franchise to someone else.
EDIT: this seems like I disagree with you both, but it's more to say that @kanisatha is right to say that Larian did choose to make a D&D game.
One issue with combat in Larian games I have is that I feel it is designed for you to exploit the environment and the elemental surfaces in order for you to make clever, when in most cases the fights are very much designed with them in mind. Vincke is saying that they see players defeating encounters in unexpected and ingenuous ways when most of the time those feel very much intentional to me.
All the elemental combos in D:OS are very much built into the system, they put height differences everywhere and lots of items that can be destroyed to create environmental surfaces.
In contrast, I feel the BG 2 cheese of combining Mind Slayer form and Timestop to kill enemies feels like an genuinely emergent exploit. As do other cheesy/smart strategies in Baldur's Gate like using Belm specifically as offhand to get the +1 attack on your mainhand. To generalize, I don't think the BG 2 teams designed the combat system around some of the more creative spell combinations (web and sword spider form), while I think in Larian's games those interactions all feel very intended and more hard-coded than natural. Larian's combats feel more like designed puzzles than D&D combat encounters to me.
To be clear I am more familiar with D:OS and D:OS 2 than BG3 at this point, so maybe BG 3 feels better.
Right. I mostly agree with this. I think the elemental and surface combat in DOS is a core part of the combat mechanic, and because it's fairly innovative, it feels clever relative to the fairly standard faire of combat in something like the IE games. So while I think it's somewhat misleading of Vinke to pretend that these combat outcomes are unexpected or ingenuous, I do think it's an evolution of combat that allows the player to feel like they handled a situation cleverly even if they just used the base mechanics to accomplish the feat. On the whole, I personally think this is a good thing. I'd rather feel clever after beating an encounter because I smartly used base surface mechanics to my advantage than because I used standard attacks and maybe one or two low level spells, a la BG 1) - even if the use of base mechanics was roughly the same in both instances.
That said, I think some of the difference is a limitation of what is present within the DOS games. BG3 will presumably allow for the same sort of elaborate combination of spell effects, along with surface and environmental features in order to provide the best of both worlds.
Something like the ability to web an enemy on a poison surface and then polymorph into a spider so I can attack them from just outside the poison but still on the web.
All the elemental combos in D:OS are very much built into the system, they put height differences everywhere and lots of items that can be destroyed to create environmental surfaces.
I feel like this description relies on a pretty strong exaggeration of the encounters in OS that really stretches it into misleading. While it is true that there are several combat encounters in both games with objects in the combat field, there are likely more combat encounters where static objects play almost no role. I've only played OS2 once, but OS1 several times. So maybe this problem gets worse in the sequel?
But it just doesn't seem like a description that matches my experience with the games. Especially not once you progress past the early levels. Of course the early levels introduce you to environmental factors, since that's a novel part of the game. It has to teach you that stuff. But I can list several key fights in the first game that do not involve usage of "items that can be destroyed..." such as taking down the Cyseal murderer, Braccus Rex (an immunity mechanic doesnt count imo), the cultists leading to Braccus, Boreas, the Baron and Baroness, and so many more.
As well, I feel like the doodads you're talking about can often be as much a risk or hindrance in a fight as opposed to a means for the player to "cheese" the fight. There's a number of poison surfaces in the beginning of OS1, for example. But the undead you fight are immune or even heal from it. Now sure, you can blow it up with fire, but you might also blow up crates that can offer goodies or end up obscuring your enemies with smoke. And again, I don't think it's true that these effect-creating doodads are present in that many fights -- certainly not in some of the more "boss" type fights.
Also, perhaps tangential to your points, but worth stating. OS and BG3 may have more complex surface effects and interactions. But they're not alone in having surface effects from spells be dominant in combat. As someone who has now sunk alot of hours into Kingmaker, I can say that surface-based spells are actually overpowered in that game. And we all know what Web, Cloudkill, etc did in the IE games.
Probably should not interfere, sorry, but just that one particular thing:
"So they should have just made D:OS3. But they chose to make a D&D game. Then it should be a D&D game."
If I am not mistaken, they did not choose anything - WotC chose them to make a DnD game. Larian offered to put DnD rules on top of their own mechanics (and their own engine) and WotC accepted it. Again, afaik, all DnD video games aways change the rules (adaptation is needed) somewhat. But in this case Larian tried to make happy both - fans of DOS games and DnD players. Not that they succeeded completely - there are unhappy players on both sides, but at least some familiarity is there for everyone.
Not so. Larian approached Wizards and specifically asked to make BG3. Subsequently, in their early public statements right after the reveal, they went out of their way to state that they were making a D&D game and NOT a D:OS game, and that they understand clearly that D&D is very different from D:OS, and that they were very sensitive to potential criticism that their BG3 game was just a D:OS game in D&D skin.
My understanding is that several companies did this though. We have credible reports that Obsidian pitched doing a BG game. And, we have reports that WotC *liked* what they saw in OS and decided on Larian, despite having several capable studios pitching them. I still think it's fair to characterize the important agent here as WotC, not Larian.
Probably should not interfere, sorry, but just that one particular thing:
"So they should have just made D:OS3. But they chose to make a D&D game. Then it should be a D&D game."
If I am not mistaken, they did not choose anything - WotC chose them to make a DnD game. Larian offered to put DnD rules on top of their own mechanics (and their own engine) and WotC accepted it. Again, afaik, all DnD video games aways change the rules (adaptation is needed) somewhat. But in this case Larian tried to make happy both - fans of DOS games and DnD players. Not that they succeeded completely - there are unhappy players on both sides, but at least some familiarity is there for everyone.
Not so. Larian approached Wizards and specifically asked to make BG3. Subsequently, in their early public statements right after the reveal, they went out of their way to state that they were making a D&D game and NOT a D:OS game, and that they understand clearly that D&D is very different from D:OS, and that they were very sensitive to potential criticism that their BG3 game was just a D:OS game in D&D skin.
My understanding is that several companies did this though. We have credible reports that Obsidian pitched doing a BG game. And, we have reports that WotC *liked* what they saw in OS and decided on Larian, despite having several capable studios pitching them. I still think it's fair to characterize the important agent here as WotC, not Larian.
There were 4 legitimate choices for who would make this game, who I'll present with their recent resumes:
Obsidian- Pillars of Eternity 1&2. Solidly, though not spectacularly received. Seen by some as too much of a homage to be their own thing.
iExile- Wasteland 2, Tides of Numenara, and Bard's Tale IV can claim varying degrees of "success" but none of them were home-runs.
Beamdog- Did a bang-up job on what was essentially a Infinity Engine campaign mod, the quality of which was completely overshadowed by an online review bombing campaign.
Larian- Two games which have the overwhelmingly positive designation on Steam (in other words, over 90% of people who leave feedback leave positive feedback) and glowing reviews from critics.
So, you can go with the company that just spent 5+ years essentially already making their own BG saga (Obsidian), a studio that hasn't even been working in the isometric high-fantasy genre (inExile), a company whose name was unfairly tarred by reactionaries and would be working with a 20 year old engine (Beamdog), or the company who had two smash hits in a row, and also deals in turn-based combat, which seems to be what most people prefer (or Pillars and Kingmaker would have never added turn-based modes).
This really wasn't gonna be much of a contest. I assume most people would have preferred Obsidian. They had their hands quite full with Outer Worlds and now Avowed, which is an Elder Scrolls-like project that requires massive investment of resources. Your other choices were a company with a pretty middling track record and one that specializes in remastering old games for modern systems. The question isn't "why Larian??" but rather "who else was gonna do it??".
Sure. And that's why we have AAA D&D games currently being made by studios named Tuque Games, Hidden Path Entertainment, and OtherSide Entertainment. As I have suspected for some time, I think it is rather clear that a lot of the rah-rah BG3 stuff people have been posting is actually all about rah-rah Larian. Well, I'll be blunt by saying that for me Larian is a subpar studio that makes subpar games. People "raving" about the D:OS games means nothing to me, because people rave about all kinds of silly and ridiculous things in today's society.
Sure. And that's why we have AAA D&D games currently being made by studios named Tuque Games, Hidden Path Entertainment, and OtherSide Entertainment. As I have suspected for some time, I think it is rather clear that a lot of the rah-rah BG3 stuff people have been posting is actually all about rah-rah Larian. Well, I'll be blunt by saying that for me Larian is a subpar studio that makes subpar games. People "raving" about the D:OS games means nothing to me, because people rave about all kinds of silly and ridiculous things in today's society.
None of those are what you would call AAA, which is all about the next-gen graphics and big budgets.
Sure. And that's why we have AAA D&D games currently being made by studios named Tuque Games, Hidden Path Entertainment, and OtherSide Entertainment. As I have suspected for some time, I think it is rather clear that a lot of the rah-rah BG3 stuff people have been posting is actually all about rah-rah Larian. Well, I'll be blunt by saying that for me Larian is a subpar studio that makes subpar games. People "raving" about the D:OS games means nothing to me, because people rave about all kinds of silly and ridiculous things in today's society.
None of those are what you would call AAA, which is all about the next-gen graphics and big budgets.
Those studios themselves as well as Wizards have labeled them AAA games. And you can now go see gameplay of Dark Alliance. The graphics are awesome. The game is also awesome. It's just not my thing as a RT hack and slash combat game.
My understanding is that several companies did this though. We have credible reports that Obsidian pitched doing a BG game.
Obsidian pitched a new game to WotC a very long time ago, not in the same timeframe as even Larian's first pitch that was rejected by WotC. The stories I have seen are that Obsidian's pitch happened before their PoE1 KS campaign, and after they created the PoE IP they no longer had any interest in doing a BG game anymore (though I personally still cling to the hope they will pitch NwN3). Larian first pitched a BG3 game to WotC after D:OS1, and WotC rejected them then. Larian then again pitched BG3 after D:OS2, and this time WotC agreed to it.
Obsidian considered The Outer Worlds to be a AA game. If that's a AA game, then nothing aside from BG3 looks to be remotely close to AAA game designation.
My personal opinion is that WotC recognizes that they're in a boom cycle with D&D 5e being popular, so they're leaning into it by making several D&D based games. However, it appears to me that of all the others, only one of them is the flagship of their new found emphasis on D&D video games: BG3.
I wouldnt be surprised if we later find that BG3's budget, man hours and staffing is greater than the combination of every D&D licensed game currently being developed.
Swinging back to something mentioned about other studios. InExile was mentioned a few times. While I cannot speak to much of their library, Wasteland 3 is a pretty fantastic game. Very buggy release, but excellent nonetheless. I dont know that they were realistically a studio that could have pulled off BG3, but they're a quality developer.
Sure. And that's why we have AAA D&D games currently being made by studios named Tuque Games, Hidden Path Entertainment, and OtherSide Entertainment. As I have suspected for some time, I think it is rather clear that a lot of the rah-rah BG3 stuff people have been posting is actually all about rah-rah Larian. Well, I'll be blunt by saying that for me Larian is a subpar studio that makes subpar games. People "raving" about the D:OS games means nothing to me, because people rave about all kinds of silly and ridiculous things in today's society.
It has nothing to do with being a cheerleader for Larian. If anything, it's my natural instinct to reject the gaming community's tendency to wallow in negativity as a hobby more enjoyable to some than actually playing games. It isn't limited to Baldur's Gate 3.
Sure. And that's why we have AAA D&D games currently being made by studios named Tuque Games, Hidden Path Entertainment, and OtherSide Entertainment. As I have suspected for some time, I think it is rather clear that a lot of the rah-rah BG3 stuff people have been posting is actually all about rah-rah Larian. Well, I'll be blunt by saying that for me Larian is a subpar studio that makes subpar games. People "raving" about the D:OS games means nothing to me, because people rave about all kinds of silly and ridiculous things in today's society.
It has nothing to do with being a cheerleader for Larian. If anything, it's my natural instinct to reject the gaming community's tendency to wallow in negativity as a hobby more enjoyable to some than actually playing games. It isn't limited to Baldur's Gate 3.
Yep, if this was RPGCodex there'd be a few wallowing in negativity about some other aspect of BG3, as opposed to its TB combat or whatever. If some folks wanna stay unsatisfied about the game, that's fine. No Larian "cheerleader" here or elsewhere is going to change your mind.
But, there are some undeniable facts. The praise for the OS games -- right now -- is basically equivalent to the praise the IE games got on release. Near universal critical acclaim from fans and critics. Copycat-ing and praise from other professional studios in the genre. All for a studio that was relatively unknown prior to their release. Time will tell if Larian's style of RPG's have the longevity of the IE games. But they're undeniably off to a strong start.
Also, I always feel like a weirdo in some of these debates on here, as someone who pretty much appreciates all of the new generation RPG's. I struggle to understand why some gamers are so mad about "today's society". There has never been a better time for this subgenre.
Comments
Comparing the two is very disingenuous to the actual argument being put forth.
Do I expect a player to figure out clever ways to use the games system to get the best synergy outcome out of encounters? Yes.
Do I want developers to put an exploding barrel right beside a enemy that will do more damage than my player would possibly be able to do without it? No.
Pillars of Eternity had such design decisions as: limited camping supplies (only 2 at the hard difficulty), the inability to change potions and food in the quick slots during combat, etc. All of this was designed so that the player tried to manage limited resources. There were also such decisions as an inability to retreat from combat which required a lot of meta-gaming for survivability.
Pathfinder: Kingmaker had such design decisions as: limited timelines for the main quest, stronghold events tied to days and weeks, advanced camping system. All of this was designed so that the player tried to manage limited resources. There were also such decisions as a very difficult way to retreat from combat which required a lot of meta-gaming for survivability.
Larian games have a different game design. They give you the tools and don't limit the player to what the player wants to use. They make you creative.
I always compare it to playing BG with full SCS. Because that is how I've been playing original BG for the last 10 years+ - with full difficulty-enhancing mods. This is why I have never had any trouble with Larian games and in fact, love them.
Realism doesn't matter: Larian games offer combat which is supposed to be a challenge for you as the player. Be it normal difficulty, or Tactician, everyone will have an option to choose their own setting.
I played through BG3 Early Access last year with resting only twice (!). My party consisted of a ranger, Shadowheart, Gale, Lae'zel. So my wizard only rested twice to renew his spells. I didn't use any odd tactics, I just played to survive.
It doesn't require a lot of effort to figure out how to overcome BG3 challenges (at least, in Early Access and with this difficulty), and it doesn't require you to constantly use fire surfaces. In fact, I tried not to use any barrels at all. But I used shove and jump, and I loved it. These actions provided so many possibilities. You can retreat from fights, you can come back later and set up traps for your enemies.
BG3 is an amazing game. It doesn't only provide different ways to solve the combat challenge, it gives you multiple ways to RP and pick different options in quests. It's an improvement over the game I enjoyed a lot - D:OS 2 in terms of variability.
It's all about creativity. I understand other people don't like that. But it's fine - there are games for your tastes, and PoE and P:K are good alternatives. And soon the new Pathfinder game will be released - which will follow the game design of the first game.
I admire this game design and really, it's the one thing that won me over day 1 when I first tried Divinity: Original Sin 2. And I would be VERY disappointed if one day that design changes. But it won't - as the studio has their creativity, understanding of how to make games and how to approach the player. This is how you get followers, fans, people who will want to try your new creations. It's a style.
This is why people like game developers and wait for their next projects. If you like sci-fi, Twin Peaks, paradoxes, you play Remedy games. If you like stealth, exploration, history and mythology, you play Ubisoft Assassin Creed games. If you like old-school party RPGs with limited resources and lots and lots of restrictions and complex systems, you play Owlcat games. If you like experiments, creativity, dialogue choices, you play Larian games. If you like complex stories and characters resembling real-life people, you play CDPR games. And you know what? You can like all that, and play all those games (just as I do).
I remember how I liked different spell combinations in Dragon Age: Origins. It was so cool. Larian's use of magic reminds me of that, it's an upgrade, an evolution.
It doesn't mean I miss it in other games: I play them as per the intended design.
I'm not sure I really follow this argument.
First - is it "cheese" if the development team has put it into the game as an intention use of mechanics? Seems to me that broadly and generally, the definition of cheese is an unintentional use of mechanics to defeat or conquer an otherwise challenging obstacle (Doesnt HAVE to be challenging, but usually is. Else, why cheese?).
Second - it more or less sounds like you think it is better game design to beat an encounter by entering and exiting the area a lich is in during each cast so every spell is wasted ("Do I expect a player to figure out clever ways to use the games system to get the best synergy outcome out of encounters? Yes") rather than using an environmental element to help defeat a challenging encounter(Do I want developers to put an exploding barrel right beside a enemy that will do more damage than my player would possibly be able to do without it? No.). If we replace the boring barrel with a column of the house that caves in the roof, then we have a puzzle element along with environmental story telling. Maybe I misunderstood you, though - Sorry, if so.
As someone who has spent a LONG time DMing games - I'd much rather introduce environmental/puzzle mechanics to alter the nature of a fight than have my plays exploit some obscure rule to make a fight rote and uninteresting.
Show me where any of this is possible within D&D 5e rules? If I tried to pull any of this in a TT D&D game, my DM and fellow players would laugh me out of the game.
My answer is they are making a game based on 5E rules and altering them in a way that best fits playing a video game by yourself rather than sitting at a table with 4 or 5 people. If you want to argue that Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 are more faithful adaptations of the 2E ruleset than Baldur's Gate 3 is of 5E then I'm not here to argue with you. I don't think the original games are a success as a result of being faithful to rules of 2E, I think they're a success because of how well it replicates the "feel" of it. I'm not particularly interested in basing how I feel about a single-player, party-based RPG by opening my 5E rulebook and checking off boxes of what is and isn't accurate on screen.
I mean, the "oil barrel next to an encounter that requires massive fire damage" is also a HEAVILY prevalent issue in the original games. There is a captain handing out fire arrows right before you take on trolls in de'Arnise Keep. The Shield of Balduran and two Scrolls of Protection from Magic are just being sold in shop in a city that has beholders in the sewers and a lich behind a wall in an inn. There are a couple wooden stakes just lying around a vampire lair for you to pick up. In Icewind Dale, a lich is keeping his phylactery across the hallway. It's so frequent that there is an entire component of SCS that removes these items from where they are in the original game.
But most games that are considered VERY well designed do similar things. Many boss fights in the Dark Souls Trilogy have SOME item or consumable very near the fog gate that could be considered highly useful to defeating that particular boss.
The Shield of Balduran is from a weird collector edition bonus, I wouldn't count that at all - especially since you are equally likely to first encounter them in the Underdark.
The wooden stakes are a good example though. But it's less intrusive than exploding barrels. All the time.
My overall point is I don't think there is anything wrong with ANY of it in any of these games. I really did not know how much some people hate the elemental damage aspects of the terrain and environment in D:OS until discussing BG3 on this forum. At the time the first game came out I thought it was an absolutely novel take on the genre and something that should be praised. Mind you, the majority HERE may not care for it, but the user and player reviews of those two games kinda speak for themselves. You can't really expect them to reverse course when 85% of people on Steam think their last two efforts have been the gold standard for the genre. A bakery doesn't change the recipe for it's best-selling pie just because they got a new logo for the sign outside.
I hadnt thought of it like that, but the magical ammo you get in a bunch of places right before fighting enemies that require magic to hit (say, the planar prison in BG2) are also simiarish.
I do agree that barrels are the basest form of it though. It's uninspired to the nth degree.
There are plenty of other mechanics present in BG1 and 2 which do not have equivalencies in 2e D&D. Such as HLAs, the way the Monk works within the game. You can cast raise dead on an elven character, etc.
BG1 and 2 are not fully faithful to 2e. Nor would I want them to be, as that rule set doesnt translate perfectly to a CRPG. I wont hold BG3 to a standard that I wont hold BG1 or 2 or any other game to. Personally.
TBH, I fail to see how this is any different than Larian adding a few combat tricks like shove. At least that move seems to involve something of a risk-reward setup. You have to move close to the target, and it's not always going to be an option. Again, I just don't see how this is more cheesy than the original games. When taken as a whole, the new systems, and their implementation still seems like it produces less cheese over the course of the game.
Well I am following your whataboutism argument regarding a game released over a two decades ago just fine and don't see how it adds to the conversation.
But let me clarify things regarding my post for you.
your First concern regarding cheese. You can call it semantics if you want. I am not here to debate what each definition means. It can be easily clarified as 'poor game design that is unrewarding for players.'
Now let me give you an example with Dragon Age Origins and the Brood Mother boss fight. When I first defeated that boss, I personally had a huge sense of accomplishment. The fight was tough, but I figured out the ideal set up for my characters and was able to defeat it.
Now imagine that fight had a cave in mechanism tied into it where the player could target the rocks above its head to trigger an avalanche that either does an insane amount of damage or kills her out right. Imagine any character, regardless of skill sets would be able to trigger that rock slide. The fight would lose a lot of its challenge and the gimmick every time would be to shoot the stones. That, like exploding barrels, cheapens the fight and makes it poor level / encounter design.
Your second point:
Do not put words in my mouth. The leaving the room when a lich casting a spell was a limitation at the time AND also following the game mechanics that the game was designed upon. The caster needs to have its target in sight or the spell fizzle and is wasted. Do I think spellcasters should have followed the retreating party - yes. They didn't because of mechanical or AI limitations, and this tactic did not work on every spellcaster.
But lets take your column example. Can anyone knock down the column? Does a character have to make any sort of checks to determine if that column is actually there for support? Do all characters in the vicinity makes a save to see if they are able to get out of the way?
Lets use a barrel example. How does the character know what is in the barrel? Do they have to make a perception or spot check? How many hit points does the barrel have? What's the barrel's AC? Is it possible for the player to miss barrel or hit the metal band(s) that hold the barrel together? Does the enemy get to make a perception check to realize that the player is targeting the barrel and will remove itself from its vicinity?
Cool. First\- It isnt whataboutism. You rolled up into a conversation that included, among other things, me discussing player agency. I used an example to highlight my thinking(Potions), as it relates to a game that we've all probably played on here. Not whataboutism. Sorry.
Second - I was repeating your argument back to you using a reference from one of my earlier posts. I wasnt putting words in your mouth, I even offered you the courtesy of apologizing if I misunderstood you. Chill.
To answer your question: Yeah - there will be a skill check to knock down the column. Maybe it's in a dilapidated house. Maybe the house is in poor condition and knocking down the column will bring the house down. This is all fairly perfunctory detail that would be offered at the table.
This is when I 'retuned' into the thread as I respect scriver's opinion on matters even if I don't always fully agree with him.
His line of "It's pretty obvious of you watch him playing the game that Swen enjoys cheesing his way through games and that preference is clearly reflected in the game design," is one, however I fully agree with and it's what first peaked my curiosity on the conversation.
Your post directly after it, starts arguing the semantics of the word 'cheese' and what it means to you, even though those you are discussing this with explained what they meant when they said 'cheese' a few posts prior:
"The terms Larian cheese or cheesy gimmicks is being used to talk about Larian's use of such things as push, shove, height advantages, backstab advantages, exploding barrels, elemental surfaces, and excessive availability and free usage of overpowered consumables, all things that are not part of D&D 5e.
While bringing up how you personally 'cheese' in your definition a game that is over two decades old, completely ignoring his point on the Shove mechanic being used in the game not matching 5e which this game should be based off of.
So ya, cool. I remember why I stopped following this thread to begin with.
OH and thank you so much for offering me the courtesy of apologizing to you. I won't.
Now, is there checks in the game for things like 'Shove' (both for success and to prevent), for any environmental effects the player can take advantage of (such as spot or perception to determine what an item will do if attacked). If the answer is 'no,' then the game isn't living up to the spirit of D&D and contradicts a statement Sven made in the first AMA where he said "We will add skill checks where it makes sense. Can you use this? Are you strong enough to lift this?"
First
Coincidentally, you omitted the section about one shotting challenging encounters and bosses using the shove mechanic. which is a different type of cheese and not a complaint about action economy or the glib nature of some larian mechanics. Hence why the conversation seemed relevant to me.
Second - here's another misunderstanding, your quote:
My response (found in the very response you spoilered):
So. You see, I dont see the value in worrying about the shove mechanic being a bonus action rather than a full action simply because... that might changed in a month or two, or before release. So from a game development sense, it doesnt really matter to me. My response was literally in the quote you provided, after which you proclaimed that I "completely ignored" it.
Third
Once again, you seemed to have misunderstood what I said. I was apologizing to you if I mischaracterized your position (which, I dont really think I did even if those arent the words you would have used). Here, I can grab that quote and bold that part for you too:
/shrugs-at-everything
Furthermore, again, you are talking past my point. I'm not making a case for strictly sticking to D&D rules. Far from it. What I am saying is that Hulk-jumping over your opponent, with no costs or penalties and only incredibly awesome benefits, is a CORE mechanic of the game, not an exploit or a cheat but a core mechanic that Larian has introduced into the game outside of D&D 5e rules. This core mechanic is expected by Larian to be widely used by players to win encounters, and encounters are designed for its widespread use. And this core mechanic does nothing to make the game "fit or "fun" for playing a video game. It utterly trivializes the game. It is the equivalent of a giant anvil appearing out of nowhere to fall on the coyote's head every time you need this to happen for you.
"So they should have just made D:OS3. But they chose to make a D&D game. Then it should be a D&D game."
If I am not mistaken, they did not choose anything - WotC chose them to make a DnD game. Larian offered to put DnD rules on top of their own mechanics (and their own engine) and WotC accepted it. Again, afaik, all DnD video games aways change the rules (adaptation is needed) somewhat. But in this case Larian tried to make happy both - fans of DOS games and DnD players. Not that they succeeded completely - there are unhappy players on both sides, but at least some familiarity is there for everyone.
All the elemental combos in D:OS are very much built into the system, they put height differences everywhere and lots of items that can be destroyed to create environmental surfaces.
In contrast, I feel the BG 2 cheese of combining Mind Slayer form and Timestop to kill enemies feels like an genuinely emergent exploit. As do other cheesy/smart strategies in Baldur's Gate like using Belm specifically as offhand to get the +1 attack on your mainhand. To generalize, I don't think the BG 2 teams designed the combat system around some of the more creative spell combinations (web and sword spider form), while I think in Larian's games those interactions all feel very intended and more hard-coded than natural. Larian's combats feel more like designed puzzles than D&D combat encounters to me.
To be clear I am more familiar with D:OS and D:OS 2 than BG3 at this point, so maybe BG 3 feels better.
EDIT: this seems like I disagree with you both, but it's more to say that @kanisatha is right to say that Larian did choose to make a D&D game.
Right. I mostly agree with this. I think the elemental and surface combat in DOS is a core part of the combat mechanic, and because it's fairly innovative, it feels clever relative to the fairly standard faire of combat in something like the IE games. So while I think it's somewhat misleading of Vinke to pretend that these combat outcomes are unexpected or ingenuous, I do think it's an evolution of combat that allows the player to feel like they handled a situation cleverly even if they just used the base mechanics to accomplish the feat. On the whole, I personally think this is a good thing. I'd rather feel clever after beating an encounter because I smartly used base surface mechanics to my advantage than because I used standard attacks and maybe one or two low level spells, a la BG 1) - even if the use of base mechanics was roughly the same in both instances.
That said, I think some of the difference is a limitation of what is present within the DOS games. BG3 will presumably allow for the same sort of elaborate combination of spell effects, along with surface and environmental features in order to provide the best of both worlds.
Something like the ability to web an enemy on a poison surface and then polymorph into a spider so I can attack them from just outside the poison but still on the web.
I feel like this description relies on a pretty strong exaggeration of the encounters in OS that really stretches it into misleading. While it is true that there are several combat encounters in both games with objects in the combat field, there are likely more combat encounters where static objects play almost no role. I've only played OS2 once, but OS1 several times. So maybe this problem gets worse in the sequel?
But it just doesn't seem like a description that matches my experience with the games. Especially not once you progress past the early levels. Of course the early levels introduce you to environmental factors, since that's a novel part of the game. It has to teach you that stuff. But I can list several key fights in the first game that do not involve usage of "items that can be destroyed..." such as taking down the Cyseal murderer, Braccus Rex (an immunity mechanic doesnt count imo), the cultists leading to Braccus, Boreas, the Baron and Baroness, and so many more.
As well, I feel like the doodads you're talking about can often be as much a risk or hindrance in a fight as opposed to a means for the player to "cheese" the fight. There's a number of poison surfaces in the beginning of OS1, for example. But the undead you fight are immune or even heal from it. Now sure, you can blow it up with fire, but you might also blow up crates that can offer goodies or end up obscuring your enemies with smoke. And again, I don't think it's true that these effect-creating doodads are present in that many fights -- certainly not in some of the more "boss" type fights.
Also, perhaps tangential to your points, but worth stating. OS and BG3 may have more complex surface effects and interactions. But they're not alone in having surface effects from spells be dominant in combat. As someone who has now sunk alot of hours into Kingmaker, I can say that surface-based spells are actually overpowered in that game. And we all know what Web, Cloudkill, etc did in the IE games.
My understanding is that several companies did this though. We have credible reports that Obsidian pitched doing a BG game. And, we have reports that WotC *liked* what they saw in OS and decided on Larian, despite having several capable studios pitching them. I still think it's fair to characterize the important agent here as WotC, not Larian.
There were 4 legitimate choices for who would make this game, who I'll present with their recent resumes:
Obsidian- Pillars of Eternity 1&2. Solidly, though not spectacularly received. Seen by some as too much of a homage to be their own thing.
iExile- Wasteland 2, Tides of Numenara, and Bard's Tale IV can claim varying degrees of "success" but none of them were home-runs.
Beamdog- Did a bang-up job on what was essentially a Infinity Engine campaign mod, the quality of which was completely overshadowed by an online review bombing campaign.
Larian- Two games which have the overwhelmingly positive designation on Steam (in other words, over 90% of people who leave feedback leave positive feedback) and glowing reviews from critics.
So, you can go with the company that just spent 5+ years essentially already making their own BG saga (Obsidian), a studio that hasn't even been working in the isometric high-fantasy genre (inExile), a company whose name was unfairly tarred by reactionaries and would be working with a 20 year old engine (Beamdog), or the company who had two smash hits in a row, and also deals in turn-based combat, which seems to be what most people prefer (or Pillars and Kingmaker would have never added turn-based modes).
This really wasn't gonna be much of a contest. I assume most people would have preferred Obsidian. They had their hands quite full with Outer Worlds and now Avowed, which is an Elder Scrolls-like project that requires massive investment of resources. Your other choices were a company with a pretty middling track record and one that specializes in remastering old games for modern systems. The question isn't "why Larian??" but rather "who else was gonna do it??".
None of those are what you would call AAA, which is all about the next-gen graphics and big budgets.
My personal opinion is that WotC recognizes that they're in a boom cycle with D&D 5e being popular, so they're leaning into it by making several D&D based games. However, it appears to me that of all the others, only one of them is the flagship of their new found emphasis on D&D video games: BG3.
I wouldnt be surprised if we later find that BG3's budget, man hours and staffing is greater than the combination of every D&D licensed game currently being developed.
Swinging back to something mentioned about other studios. InExile was mentioned a few times. While I cannot speak to much of their library, Wasteland 3 is a pretty fantastic game. Very buggy release, but excellent nonetheless. I dont know that they were realistically a studio that could have pulled off BG3, but they're a quality developer.
It has nothing to do with being a cheerleader for Larian. If anything, it's my natural instinct to reject the gaming community's tendency to wallow in negativity as a hobby more enjoyable to some than actually playing games. It isn't limited to Baldur's Gate 3.
Yep, if this was RPGCodex there'd be a few wallowing in negativity about some other aspect of BG3, as opposed to its TB combat or whatever. If some folks wanna stay unsatisfied about the game, that's fine. No Larian "cheerleader" here or elsewhere is going to change your mind.
But, there are some undeniable facts. The praise for the OS games -- right now -- is basically equivalent to the praise the IE games got on release. Near universal critical acclaim from fans and critics. Copycat-ing and praise from other professional studios in the genre. All for a studio that was relatively unknown prior to their release. Time will tell if Larian's style of RPG's have the longevity of the IE games. But they're undeniably off to a strong start.
Also, I always feel like a weirdo in some of these debates on here, as someone who pretty much appreciates all of the new generation RPG's. I struggle to understand why some gamers are so mad about "today's society". There has never been a better time for this subgenre.