Article Categories
- Baldur's Gate 3
- Diablo
- Elder Scrolls
- General
- Hogwarts Legacy
- League of Legends
- Minecraft
- Pokemon Go
- Sims 4
- StarCraft
- Steam Platform
- Xbox Game Console
More Articles
Why can't I like BG3?
I have heard a lot about BG3, and never played it, for many reasons.
Yet because it is so popular, I just can’t let it go. “It’s not for me” doesn’t work so well when the game apparently is for millions of other players. If it isn’t for me, then ‘me’ has to be broken, in some way, right? Especially if I've played several CRPGS.
As an outsider, here are my issues:.
1) DND 5e.
I’m a veteran TTRPG player. Mostly in the Pathfinder side of things; both 1e (based on DND 3.5) and 2e. My CRPG gaming started with Neverwinter Nights, based on the DND 3.0 system. And I even later enjoyed DND 4e immensely, despite the common outcry of the time of it emulating an MMORPG, which felt weird to me as I was also playing WoW at the time.
However, BG3 asks something very different. 5e is a very simplified system that foists a lot of mechanics upon the GM, and additionally gives little to the players, often sequestering them to linear sub-classes with very little customization or build variation. Many choices are made within the first 2 levels, usually by a linear subclass that grants abilities at points that would otherwise be a dead level, if not a ribbon feature like Fighter 9, or Cleric 11.
For instance, a fighter gains an ASI at level 4, but must decide between a numerically superior option of +2 STR or a mildly flavorful option of Great Weapon Master / Polearm Master / Sentinel. Some levels are devoid of choice; you already made it when you started playing through subclass features. Many levels have no choice; receive more HP, your allotted extra skill if you're lucky, and that's it.
As a response to the lack of mechanical variety, particularly in 5e, the usual line has been to separate characters with the mantra of “flavor is free”. Your greatsword fighter might choose the same Great Weapon Master feat at level 2 as a thousand fighters before them, but you could reflavor your own fighter and their other abilities as a barbarian, imagining Action Surge as a burst of rage. Or you might imagine a mystic warrior with their Action Surge becoming a blend of martial spellcraft like a spellstrike.
But given the video game 3d engine Larian has constructed, you can’t even play pretend and reflavor. The combat is not happening in the 'theatre of the mind'. Your "mystic warrior" is not generating magical energy when they attack, and your "barbarian" is not expressing their rage. They are reduced once again, visually and mechanically, to the same and identical level 4 fighter.
2) The horny.
Basically all I hear about the game's character dialogue is hornyposting. Whether it’s PCs screwing bears, or the NPC companions making weird advances like smelling the PC or “Gale’s magic trick”, it’s all I seem to know about the game’s first Act. I’ve heard “that’s only a small fraction of the game”, but what fraction of the game is character dialogue? For example, if the game is 100 hours long, character dialogue is 10 hours total and the horny dialogue is 8 hours, can you really say that horny is not a large part of the game when it is 8/10 hours of character dialogue? Especially if those 8 hours are in the first act?
And regardless of time, what if I don’t want weirdos making sexual advances to me? It's never been a part of my TTRPG or CRPG experience so far; so why should I have to accept it now?
3) Larian’s houserules.
Despite 5e being a flawed as hell system, Larian saw fit to make admittedly controversial changes to the game and yet breaks even the tenuous form of balance that 5e has even further.
For example, they despised the fact that the most common character in Early Access was a Human ‘vault dweller’: "We gave your horns and tails". In retaliation, they weaponized the Tasha’s ability score ruleset to nerf humans into oblivion as a response. No variant human, and only a very minor bonus to carry capacity. People who were more comfortable playing characters without relying on superficial traits like horns and tails were made to be weaker, or they had to turn to mods like Variant Human (Simulated), or Human Unleashed.
Other house rules include excessive ground effects, and making other effects bonus actions for free that break other elements of 5e like rogue's Cunning Action which becomes worthless as a class feature when every other character has just as many uses for their bonus action for free. And critical fails on skill checks despite it never being a rule. I don't fail to tie my shoes 5% of the time, so why does this exist? If "the GM shouldn't call for a roll you can't fail", then the GM (Larian) shouldn't be calling for literal DC 0 checks.
Then if you use what few mods between updates, they can easily break between releases unless you happen to make your steam folder read-only; many mods appear to have already died given their 6+ month old release date and given point 1 above, if a mod can’t provide that functionality, it may as well not exist as 5e is so barebones.
So… am I wrong? If not, what am I missing? Is the game very much ‘not for me’? Even despite the millions of players? Am I looking too deep?
Question from user InfTotality at BaldursGate3 at reddit.com.
Answer:
Why cant I like BG3?
Because you havent played it. And rather than playing it, you decided to come here and make a long post to proudly blast your ignorance.
But you already knew that.
Answer from user Filty-Cheese-Steak at BaldursGate3 at reddit.com.
I have heard a lot about BG3, and never played it, for many reasons.
Yet because it is so popular, I just can’t let it go. “It’s not for me” doesn’t work so well when the game apparently is for millions of other players. If it isn’t for me, then ‘me’ has to be broken, in some way, right? Especially if I've played several CRPGS.
As an outsider, here are my issues:.
1) DND 5e.
I’m a veteran TTRPG player. Mostly in the Pathfinder side of things; both 1e (based on DND 3.5) and 2e. My CRPG gaming started with Neverwinter Nights, based on the DND 3.0 system. And I even later enjoyed DND 4e immensely, despite the common outcry of the time of it emulating an MMORPG, which felt weird to me as I was also playing WoW at the time.
However, BG3 asks something very different. 5e is a very simplified system that foists a lot of mechanics upon the GM, and additionally gives little to the players, often sequestering them to linear sub-classes with very little customization or build variation. Many choices are made within the first 2 levels, usually by a linear subclass that grants abilities at points that would otherwise be a dead level, if not a ribbon feature like Fighter 9, or Cleric 11.
For instance, a fighter gains an ASI at level 4, but must decide between a numerically superior option of +2 STR or a mildly flavorful option of Great Weapon Master / Polearm Master / Sentinel. Some levels are devoid of choice; you already made it when you started playing through subclass features. Many levels have no choice; receive more HP, your allotted extra skill if you're lucky, and that's it.
As a response to the lack of mechanical variety, particularly in 5e, the usual line has been to separate characters with the mantra of “flavor is free”. Your greatsword fighter might choose the same Great Weapon Master feat at level 2 as a thousand fighters before them, but you could reflavor your own fighter and their other abilities as a barbarian, imagining Action Surge as a burst of rage. Or you might imagine a mystic warrior with their Action Surge becoming a blend of martial spellcraft like a spellstrike.
But given the video game 3d engine Larian has constructed, you can’t even play pretend and reflavor. The combat is not happening in the 'theatre of the mind'. Your "mystic warrior" is not generating magical energy when they attack, and your "barbarian" is not expressing their rage. They are reduced once again, visually and mechanically, to the same and identical level 4 fighter.
2) The horny.
Basically all I hear about the game's character dialogue is hornyposting. Whether it’s PCs screwing bears, or the NPC companions making weird advances like smelling the PC or “Gale’s magic trick”, it’s all I seem to know about the game’s first Act. I’ve heard “that’s only a small fraction of the game”, but what fraction of the game is character dialogue? For example, if the game is 100 hours long, character dialogue is 10 hours total and the horny dialogue is 8 hours, can you really say that horny is not a large part of the game when it is 8/10 hours of character dialogue? Especially if those 8 hours are in the first act?
And regardless of time, what if I don’t want weirdos making sexual advances to me? It's never been a part of my TTRPG or CRPG experience so far; so why should I have to accept it now?
3) Larian’s houserules.
Despite 5e being a flawed as hell system, Larian saw fit to make admittedly controversial changes to the game and yet breaks even the tenuous form of balance that 5e has even further.
For example, they despised the fact that the most common character in Early Access was a Human ‘vault dweller’: "We gave your horns and tails". In retaliation, they weaponized the Tasha’s ability score ruleset to nerf humans into oblivion as a response. No variant human, and only a very minor bonus to carry capacity. People who were more comfortable playing characters without relying on superficial traits like horns and tails were made to be weaker, or they had to turn to mods like Variant Human (Simulated), or Human Unleashed.
Other house rules include excessive ground effects, and making other effects bonus actions for free that break other elements of 5e like rogue's Cunning Action which becomes worthless as a class feature when every other character has just as many uses for their bonus action for free. And critical fails on skill checks despite it never being a rule. I don't fail to tie my shoes 5% of the time, so why does this exist? If "the GM shouldn't call for a roll you can't fail", then the GM (Larian) shouldn't be calling for literal DC 0 checks.
Then if you use what few mods between updates, they can easily break between releases unless you happen to make your steam folder read-only; many mods appear to have already died given their 6+ month old release date and given point 1 above, if a mod can’t provide that functionality, it may as well not exist as 5e is so barebones.
So… am I wrong? If not, what am I missing? Is the game very much ‘not for me’? Even despite the millions of players? Am I looking too deep?
Question from user InfTotality at BaldursGate3 at reddit.com.
Answer:
Why cant I like BG3?
Because you havent played it. And rather than playing it, you decided to come here and make a long post to proudly blast your ignorance.
But you already knew that.
Answer from user Filty-Cheese-Steak at BaldursGate3 at reddit.com.
N++ System Requirements on Mac
Diablo IV: Is the Elementalist glyph triggered by +X elemental damage affixes?
How do you upload Pokemon from the Virtual Console versions of R - B - Y to the Pokemon Bank?
Use armor stand location on bedrock
How do I check how much weapons have been strengthened by Material Grind?
Using bikes over karts in time trials in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe
Are the Professor Layton and the Curious Village download puzzles still available?
What constitutes a save in Overwatch 2?
