Baldur’s Gate 3 is a story-rich, party-based RPG set in the universe of Dungeons & Dragons, where your choices shape a tale of fellowship and betrayal, survival and sacrifice, and the lure of absolute power. (Website)
If your post contains any possible spoilers, please:
Thank you!
As a person w/ out d&d experience, who was broadly aware of the game (ie. know classes but not the difference between actions & bonus actions), I didn't have a terrible time onboarding. I started as a paladin and found that most of what I could do was pretty apparent and my friends who probably knew less than me seemed to catch on just as fast.
Some things like throwing potions wasn't as obvious but I could see some choice paralysis from being a spellcaster.
For me, all my trouble comes from my party members. I understand my character and his limitations, but managing classes that I don't fully understand has led to me greying out spells due to armor restrictions or causing my party to accidentally split because the wizard, weighed down by cloth, a book, and a cane, can't jump as high as my fully-kitted out fighter with ringmail and a greatsword and now is alone in combat against some CR3 monster.
Just in case you don’t know, jump distance is determined entirely by the strength stat
You played one of the simpler classes to be fair, paladins just hit things and hit things harder with smite.
High level wizards are when it can complicated, or you can forego all the complication and just spam fireball as the hammer to every nail
Tbf paladin does still have a number of spell that I've used like compel duel, command and the healing spells. Plus I ended up taking 2 lvls in druid to get more spells and slots. Thorn whip is pretty good on a paladin.
I learned to play D&D Advanced Ed, TMNT the rpg, Shadowrun 1st edition, GURPS, and others, when I was 10-11 years old.
It's not particularly complex, you just have to be interested enough to read and take the time to learn the ruleset.
I've been thinking about this a lot because I have two weekly games, and both have at least one player who just doesn't really master the rules.
They're not stupid people. But they don't pick up the rules. Ten weeks in and I'm still reminding them about opportunity attacks. One group isn't playing DND and one player has similar problems.
I don't know what to do.
Some people are just never going to learn them.
What other game is the second group playing?
I found that the idea of "D&D" doesn't match with the reality of D&D® (or adjacent like Pathfinder and Shadow of the Demon Lord). Like most people think of grand stories with climactic moments and character growth and the modern D&D offers more of a "square - counting, binary pass/fail roll slog, abstract resource management with little character choice after 3rd level, and almost zero risk" experience. Which is great in a video game, but boring at the table.
I've ran D&D® (or adjacent) for numerous groups for over 30 years now across multiple editions and the most success in the D&D® framework I had was B/X, but I think the game that comes closest to realizing "D&D" as a concept is Dungeon World. No overwhelming player facing textbooks, and it constantly pushes the narrative forward no matter what the outcome of a roll is. It's also free.
There's thousands of different games out there from more complex than D&D to single word RPGs. Find the right one for you and your group 😄
The other game is Mage: The Awakening (2e). It's very, very, different than D&D. It's one of my big game crushes that I've rarely been able to play.
But the player decision space is pretty huge, and the players have a lot of tools at hand. I don't really want to remind them every time like "You can use Web Weaver to make the connection easier to work with" or "You can ritually cast instead of instant cast to get more dice and reaches"
Honestly after a while I stopped caring and just enjoyed that I could do three actions per round as a Monk. Does it matter that Gale can't throw this grenade? Nope. Can he take this healing pot? He sure can! I don't care for minmaxing and optimising my playstyle, I prefer to wing it and see how it goes. If an NPC dies in the process, RNGesus has spoken.
I know this will be a very controversial comment, but I actually can't stand the combat (extremely unfamiliar with the genre as a whole, and I've also never been a fan of turn-based systems), but love the game to death. As a result, I'm using a trainer to essentially trivialize combat encounters, because my BG3 addiction stems from the characters, their stories, the incredible world and the exploration it offers, the side quests, the lore, the insane detail in every corner of the map. I also work 80 hour weeks and want to spend the little time I get with the game doing what I love most, which is exploration and delving into my characters' stories.
I've just gotten through Moonrise Towers (and have done all I can find to do in each area so far, although I already know I'll be doing multiple playthroughs), and it's one of the most immersive and enjoyable gaming experiences I've ever had, despite the fact I'm quite literally cheating my way through combat encounters. I'm basically playing it as a very interactive 'choose your own adventure' novel, with weapon and armor pickups being cosmetic-only in nature, and the focus of my playthrough being on exploring the world and delving into its inhabitants' backstories and the mysteries they hold.
Playing a game differently to make sure you're having fun is fine to me (presuming you're not messing up other people's multiplayer experiences or something, which isn't the case here).
Don't see why this would need to be controversial.
I guess I'm still expecting the reddit response to this kind of thing. I got torn to shreds over there for saying this, despite it being a game I'm playing solo.
Yeah, I played BG1 and 2 in easy mode because I was basically too old for that shit 10 years ago.
(otoh, I grind CP2077 for 100 hours so perhaps I'm just a fucking idiot)
I don't disagree with your stance, but I am curious why you decided on a trainer instead of picking the easier difficulty. Did you try it and still find it too much? I have read about the differences between modes but haven't actually tried anything other than normal, and even though I'm extremely familiar with PF 1e and D&D 5e I've struggled with lots of encounters.
I initially started on easy, but just found it far too complex of a system to get my head around, and when my work hours can see me going days between play sessions, any knowledge I do pick up often isn't retained. I also just don't enjoy turn based combat at all, so when I enter combat, I just throw on god mode and infinite turns to get it over and return to the story or quest more quickly (I'll often alter things depending on what's happening in the game at the time though. For example, I did the Gauntlet of Shar with Shadowheart on her own, as it felt like something she needed to tackle solo, even if I wasn't in any genuine danger.)
I guess tl;dr - even easy was a bit too much for me to take in given my work schedule, as well as the combat taking a lot of time away from the aspects of the game I love, namely exploration and stories.
What's a "trainer" ?
a separate program that allows one to "cheat" (not a bad thing, as long as it's not done in multiplayer) by scanning and modifying the game's memory.
for example, it could figure out where your hitpoints are stored and constantly overwrite that value with your full hit points
40 hours later of couch co-op with my inexperienced partner who chose Wizard for some reason, and their character is finally useful in battle near the end of act 2.
I try not to control them, I just say what I'm doing and planning so they don't launch my team off a cliff. Occasionally I'll say "Yes, counterspell cloudkill please." but I'm mostly hands off. When asked for advice I give it, I'm not a monster, I just think if we're playing together we should both get to play.
I haven't played any DnD since 3rd, and my partner loves these role playing shows like Critical Role or whatever. My biggest takeaway I've had from our sessions is that those shows most not have any mechanics whatsoever.
Those shows have people that play the game a lot (critical role played for years before going live), they don't teach mechanics to their viewers.
The shows follow the rules and utilize all mechanics, but you need the context. As someone familiar with 3.5, Critical Role got me 95% to playing the 5th edition without touching the books.
Can't say the same would apply to someone new to pen-and-paper RPGs.
DnD is stupidly complicated and hopefully this is a call out to WotC to realise that their system isn't the gold standard because of its rules, but moreso out of happenstance.
It's funny you say this when 5E is considered the "simplified" version, and 6E (One DnD) is suspected to be more complex. Pathfinder 1e(basically dnd 3.5E) is way, way more complex and even pathfinder 2e, which is much more simpler than 1e, is more complex than 5e.
In any case, as TTRPGs go, current DND is quite simple. However, it seems that some people who enjoy RPGs just want a simpler experience I guess.
Yeah it's insane to me seeing this take around with this release. There are definitely intentionally rules light, heavy narrative systems that are less crunchy but DnD is not really very complicated.
Dnd 5e has many legacy concepts that exist the way they do just because thats how older versions worked.
The system I basically started TTRPGs with was Pathfinder. It's rediculously more complex, but it's complex for a reason. The rules are created I'm a way that there are almost no limits to what actions you can take that are covered. D&D has a lot of options, but some of it just has to be left the the DM.
Then we have BG3, which removed even more options, though for good reason. Creating a video game that can account for anything the player can do is hard, though some things are just missing and I'm not sure why. For example, no grappling (by the player). My guess would be that may be for animation reason (having to account for non-humanoid grappling) but I feel like they could have done something to make it work.
I quite honestly don't understand the opinion of DnD being complicated at least from what I've played everything runs smooth. It being inside of a video game makes things even clearer with UI.
I think the game does an amazing job streamlining the dnd rules and making them easier to understand
I only ever found the magic classes complicated when I was new. The limited spells per day and number of cast rules, what you had access to as what, memorizing, etc... All a lot of work compared to other games I was used to just having a mana pool.
Yeah. It's a holdover that doesn't work great. Vancian casting is pretty weird. It's impressive how easy bg3 makes learning the casting.
The fact that they let prepared casters change prepared spells without a long rest is a HUGE buff. As written you pick your spells when you long rest, and if it turns out you needed something you didn't prepare you'd be out of luck
I just turned it down to the lowest difficulty setting until I learned how the system works. By level 7 I'm holding my own in balanced setting and enjoying the hell out of this game. It's all I play now lol
There's a fair bit of onboarding and constant learning if people are coming into D&D or similar games. I felt the same with pathfinder trying to understand spell metamagic (caster levels, DCs etc)
I play on explorer, but really am confused why they don't allow multiclassing on that difficulty setting.
I would assume that it helps casual players by removing confusing options ans reducing choice paralysis. There's already a lot to choose and think about with one class - multi classing makes it even more complex and scary.
Coming from Pathfinder, I find 5e really simple and scoffed at the title but if you've never played before it's a great point