D&D General The longer I play Baldur's Gate 3 ...

I really wished we could get some of the better adventures (Tomb of Annihilation, Rime, maybe Descent to Avernus and of course Strahd) in the BG3 treatment. I know that would be a huge amount of work to keep the quality on par. I'd love to adventure into Chult.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Magic arrows - accounting. New conditions - keeping track of too many different types of effects is too much account (which is cited as a reason for the change to exhaustion rules in the new edition ... people could not remember what each level of exhaustion did). New consumables - the rules cover the idea of making your own consumables and other magic items ... so it does equate to existing options. Terrain the in the game is discussed in a lot of places - from falling rules, to climbing rules, to object destruction rules ....
What makes these items unlike other existing items other than their mechanical structure and the numbers (and other complexities) underlying them?
Its clear to me you are nitpicking, fabricating, and exaggerating. Nothing here is imo a reasonable rebuttal.
 

Burnside

Space Jam Confirmed
Supporter
I really wished we could get some of the better adventures (Tomb of Annihilation, Rime, maybe Descent to Avernus and of course Strahd) in the BG3 treatment. I know that would be a huge amount of work to keep the quality on par. I'd love to adventure into Chult.

I'd like to see that too. I know that somewhere at Larian is their adaptation of Lost Mine of Phandelver which they made as proof of concept for WotC.
 


jgsugden

Legend
Its clear to me you are nitpicking, fabricating, and exaggerating. Nothing here is imo a reasonable rebuttal.
You're entitled to your opinion. I think it is wrong.

You also didn't answer my question. What makes these items unlike other existing items other than their mechanical structure and the numbers (and other complexities) underlying them?
 

It would certainly explain a lot of the products and attitude of a lot of the RPG community, some of whom get positively offended when it's suggested making a RPG product more useful for the table is a good idea -- whether that's playtesting, layout or how it's written.

I remember this very fight being extremely fiery back on the White Wolf Usenet back in the day. They definitely ended up siding with the readers over the players and, I'd say, oWoD quality really fell off a cliff in the late 1990s as a result, although with flashes of brilliance, like Time of Thin Blood.
Didn't one of the WoD designers at one point come out and say "Oh we write the campaigns as cool stories then work back to make them playable"? It was certainly something pretty like that, and I remember thinking back then "Yeah, that is definitely not surprising".

I feel kind of lucky that I grew up in an era where we still have a lot of adventures for various games designed to be run, not read, designed to be fun for the players, not for the DM reading it, and so on. Because like, if you started playing RPGs in 3E or later, you didn't really see that - it's never fully come back - sure some designers and even some companies do a better job than others, but the mainstream of adventure writing has gone with "fun for the DM to read as a story" waaaaaay ahead of all other factors, and WotC has very much been part of that movement.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Sometimes we disagree but here we are spot on. It is insane that the magic items, variant spells, and monsters (especially the monsters) were not ported over. Furthermore, a lot of the fights you can transform into encounters with battlemaps for an easy buck.

I understand DND24 took a lot of effort, but the BG3 rules were cemented for years and could have easily, with just 1-2 dedicated people, been turned into a money-printing product.
I don't understand DND24 taking a lot of effort, so it makes even less sense to me.

It would be so easy for them to release a web supplement. They did it for Minecraft, of all things.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Didn't one of the WoD designers at one point come out and say "Oh we write the campaigns as cool stories then work back to make them playable"? It was certainly something pretty like that, and I remember thinking back then "Yeah, that is definitely not surprising".

I feel kind of lucky that I grew up in an era where we still have a lot of adventures for various games designed to be run, not read, designed to be fun for the players, not for the DM reading it, and so on. Because like, if you started playing RPGs in 3E or later, you didn't really see that - it's never fully come back - sure some designers and even some companies do a better job than others, but the mainstream of adventure writing has gone with "fun for the DM to read as a story" waaaaaay ahead of all other factors, and WotC has very much been part of that movement.
Well, the DM is the one paying for it. They're not just donating their time.
 

I feel kind of lucky that I grew up in an era where we still have a lot of adventures for various games designed to be run, not read, designed to be fun for the players, not for the DM reading it, and so on. Because like, if you started playing RPGs in 3E or later, you didn't really see that - it's never fully come back - sure some designers and even some companies do a better job than others, but the mainstream of adventure writing has gone with "fun for the DM to read as a story" waaaaaay ahead of all other factors, and WotC has very much been part of that movement.
Though, I feel 2e adventure design is actually maybe the epitome of adventures to be read, not run.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Though, I feel 2e adventure design is actually maybe the epitome of adventures to be read, not run.
Yeah...good times. They usually have cool ideas and maps to crib, and I make my own adventures anyway. I don't think I've ever straight run a published adventure, and I own a ton of them. Just tools for the kit, and stories to read.
 

Remove ads

Top