Josh Sawyer offered his opinion on Baldur's Gate 3, D&D 5th edition, and powergaming.
More information.
Obsidian Entertainment - Josh Sawyer on Powergaming and BG3
- Thread starter Silver
- Start date
Everybody even developers have an opinion about BG 3 this month it seems. Though I have to admit I laughed when some banded together, and called BG 3 an anomaly.
Want even more laughing articles read PCGamer more.
They are crapping on Starfield and hyping BG 3.
Want even more laughing articles read PCGamer more.
They are crapping on Starfield and hyping BG 3.
Absolutely laughable what some people say about BG3. Nobody expects 20 person-teams to produce something like it. Nonetheless, I don't see why you couldn't enjoy both typs of games.
For example, I play Black Geyser atm. It is not perfect, but I enjoy it quite a bit and hope more RPG-connoseuers will give it a try. Will such games become mainstream? Not likely. So why compare them with AAA-titles?
For example, I play Black Geyser atm. It is not perfect, but I enjoy it quite a bit and hope more RPG-connoseuers will give it a try. Will such games become mainstream? Not likely. So why compare them with AAA-titles?
Warmark
Sentinel
I love listening to Josh, he just comes across as so genuine, would love to have a couple of beers with him and talk game development...
I have to admit being influenced or spoiled by well-done AAA games, making it more difficult than otherwise for me to enjoy AA games.
As for min-maxing, I do that in pretty much every game which has stats, although not to an nth degree such as reading others' class guides or anything else like that. If I'm going to create a certain type of character, I wouldn't want to make a choice which would significantly disadvantage the character in combat or other endeavors.
Some games try to encourage gamers to choose a disadvantageous trait but unless that means some sort of other benefit (such as extra dialogue options), I wouldn't be influenced by that.
As for min-maxing, I do that in pretty much every game which has stats, although not to an nth degree such as reading others' class guides or anything else like that. If I'm going to create a certain type of character, I wouldn't want to make a choice which would significantly disadvantage the character in combat or other endeavors.
Some games try to encourage gamers to choose a disadvantageous trait but unless that means some sort of other benefit (such as extra dialogue options), I wouldn't be influenced by that.
- Joined
- Oct 23, 2006
- Messages
- 845
My personal wish in all games is to have a working "jack-of-all-trades", and therefore I kind of despise min-maxing because it forces me to play a character the way I don't want to. Or, in other words, rather the developer force me to do that often in games, because otherwise these games are not winnable.
This was a thing I hated when I was playing BG1, didn't know the rules, and suddenly ran into a glass wall. I never looked back.
Playing a "jack-of-all-trades" is most resonating with my own inner philosophy, and I'm not at all a "power guy". The male theme of "getting into power" and become the most powerful being there is, this is something I cannot resonate with at all.
Which could mean that in this current world is is a strong theme - also put forward by developers who mainly develop for men - and being a man is nowadays (or always, maybe it's an patriarchate thing) = to be competitive, and to crush everyone else, like I've seen it in SWTOR PvP.
Being a "jack-of-all-trades" is often considered to be inferior, because = not powerful. I think that a (A)D&D Bard, who is such a sort of character - would be considered socially inferior compared to other classes because = not powerful. Like Diplomnacy being considered as "weak" and "inferior" by Gangstas with guns and with gold chains around their necks.
From that PC Gamer article :
(A)D&D = Math Fest.
Most other RPGs are Math Festivals as well. Everyone good in that will profit considerably. Everyone having a Dyscalculia will have to uninstall any (A)D&D game at one point. Serious.y, I think ( I do have a slight Dyscalculia, and I uninstalled BG1 and never played BG2 because of that ).
This was a thing I hated when I was playing BG1, didn't know the rules, and suddenly ran into a glass wall. I never looked back.
Playing a "jack-of-all-trades" is most resonating with my own inner philosophy, and I'm not at all a "power guy". The male theme of "getting into power" and become the most powerful being there is, this is something I cannot resonate with at all.
Which could mean that in this current world is is a strong theme - also put forward by developers who mainly develop for men - and being a man is nowadays (or always, maybe it's an patriarchate thing) = to be competitive, and to crush everyone else, like I've seen it in SWTOR PvP.
Being a "jack-of-all-trades" is often considered to be inferior, because = not powerful. I think that a (A)D&D Bard, who is such a sort of character - would be considered socially inferior compared to other classes because = not powerful. Like Diplomnacy being considered as "weak" and "inferior" by Gangstas with guns and with gold chains around their necks.
From that PC Gamer article :
Who cares about any narrative ? These days, games are more to educate men in a manly world of how to become competitive - by doing "the right coices" - and become unstoppable = accumulaste wealth. No Gangsta-wannabe needs a so-called "narrative".
(A)D&D = Math Fest.
Most other RPGs are Math Festivals as well. Everyone good in that will profit considerably. Everyone having a Dyscalculia will have to uninstall any (A)D&D game at one point. Serious.y, I think ( I do have a slight Dyscalculia, and I uninstalled BG1 and never played BG2 because of that ).
Last edited:
purpleblob
Princess
- Joined
- September 4, 2021
- Messages
- 1,413
Seems a bit off topic but I will chime in.
I care for narrative. I make most of my build choices based on RP choices rather than min-max reason. I also never get a full understanding of combat mechanics but I didn't have much trouble with D&D/Pathfinder games like BG2, Kingmaker, WotR on normal difficulty. I do think nowdays, many games offer players to pick the difficulty they can feel comfortable with even if you decide to go for "gimped" characters.
I disagree with this. Mathfest if you decide to play on higher difficulty, no need if you play on normal or easier. You still need some level of understanding of each spells/abilties but I never really sit down and think about how I can get "maximise" my damage or anything.
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2021
- Messages
- 1,413
I suppose that Obsidian should probably just go ahead and remove the combat entirely in Avowed and the future games, so players don't feel frustrated if they lose a fight. 
The cat and the 'Baldur's Gate 3' in the title must be the standard props to get more audience, well done.
The cat and the 'Baldur's Gate 3' in the title must be the standard props to get more audience, well done.
Drithius
Magic & Loss
I don't understand your commentary at all; it has nothing to do with the video at hand? And, are you suggesting that Larian has a 20 person team for BG3? It's around 400.
It was about the many people/devs/influencers (not necessarily Josh) saying that BG3 is an "anomaly" and will make it harder in the future for smaller teams wanting to do RPGs. The rest should be self-explanatory.
I didn't hear that in the video and I don't think it has anything to do with it.
That being said, the video didn't make much more sense than the other anomaly rant. I think people are trying to grab some of BG3's limelight.
I believe that all of this hype around BG3 can backfire in the end. If BG3 turns out to be "only" a great game, instead of being the super-duper pinnacle of D&D-gaming, there is a risk, that several fans will start to badmouth it, who would have liked it without all those huge expectations. I hope that something like that will not happen.
Also, in such a hype situation other developers talking about the game will risk to be considered jealous, even if they have said nothing like that.
Also, in such a hype situation other developers talking about the game will risk to be considered jealous, even if they have said nothing like that.
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,794
Drithius
Magic & Loss
As to the original PC Gamer article, I don't doubt that Larian has 'streamlined' the already fairly streamlined 5th edition. Complexity in systems was never the studio's strongsuit; their systems in DoS 2 were both shallow and flawed. Still, that simplicity is what draws casual players in (I'm still mystified by the aforementioned title's widescale success). With less complexity, there will naturally be fewer avenues for min-maxing (and frankly little benefit to doing so).
BG3 will undoubtedly be a massive hit. Whether it will be a good RPG for longtime fans of the genre is another matter.
BG3 will undoubtedly be a massive hit. Whether it will be a good RPG for longtime fans of the genre is another matter.
Yeah I cast shade on that prediction.
Read the latest Eurogamer interview for the info. It sold millions on EA to the PC market. That money is gone. The console numbers will matter more in the end.
I can already see someone writing a rebuttal as usual though what I said is fact.
Read the latest Eurogamer interview for the info. It sold millions on EA to the PC market. That money is gone. The console numbers will matter more in the end.
I can already see someone writing a rebuttal as usual though what I said is fact.
Complexity is not an inherently desirable quality in a game.
There's this YouTube channel that shares little D&D stories mostly about using spells to win fights or overcome other obstacles in creative ways. The channel had a video once about how there's a certain kind of player/DM who hates this sort of thing because of how it can disrupt tactical combat, ultimately concluding that different people like different things (shocker!). I share this because D:OS2 (which I think is excellent) strikes me as very much by and for the kind of D&D player who enjoys that kind of open-endedness, experimentation, and outside the box thinking, rather than the kind who wants to solve an elaborate mathematical puzzle.
Personally (different strokes for different folks, remember), I find min-maxing the antithesis of fun. I can understand in the abstract why others enjoy engineering the perfect build, but it doesn't appeal to me at all and it's not what RPGs are about for me. Nor do I buy Sawyer's argument that it's a defense mechanism. With rare, extremely indie exceptions specifically marketed on difficulty, I find it a safe assumption that digital RPGs are beatable without powergaming in their standard difficulty, and choosing to do so anyway it's usually overkill. In a tabletop RPG, the GM should balance the game to fit the players and the intended experience, and if a character dies anyway—well, they die! That's part of the fun.
The PC Gamer article telling people how to have fun is both futile and out of line, though.
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2019
- Messages
- 107
I like the type of complexity that lets you explore and try things. For example, Pathfinder offers a diversity of choices to the character development, which is somewhat complex but you don't have to read everything before playing; you can take the time to test different classes, abilities, and spells. There's a lot to discover and it makes me want to try different subclasses and evolution choices.
The ruleset in itself is complex too, so it requires some time to learn and that part can't really be ignored to play, except maybe at the start when the game is still easy. I know that not everybody likes the steep curve, but don't really mind either way as long as it allows for interesting tactical situations. I was perfectly happy with Expeditions: Rome even if it was much simpler, for example.
PS: Did you mean to share a link to the channel you mentioned, or did I misunderstand?
Ironically, I felt like they were already going in that direction in The Outer Worlds with the overabundance of ammo and health items everywhere. You couldn't walk 20 feet in that game without running into another crate of free goodies.I suppose that Obsidian should probably just go ahead and remove the combat entirely in Avowed and the future games, so players don't feel frustrated if they lose a fight.
I think you're giving it too much credit already. Based on what I'm seeing, I seriously doubt it's going to be any kind of pinnacle of D&D. Larian has done a great job getting the hype train rolling though.
I don't even know if it's going to be "great". Personally, I'll settle for really good.
Story is most important to me as well (which is one of several reasons why I "switched over to" Genshin Impact).
But, there are, of course, mathematicians there as well, tongue-in-cheek speaking, but others in the "forums" there already told me that I Should/could be fine with not putting too much thought into the game mechanics.
I think, it's mostly the action players and the min-maxers who do not care for story. It's just a theory of mine, though.