“We believe RPGs are big … So we always believed the audience was there,” says Adam Smith

  • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    Imagine more battlefield manipulation, more pushes and pulls. And a bit more dangerous ground

    Ok, I’m imagining something much more complicated than it needs to be. I just want to kill goblins, not win the battle of Waterloo!

    • tissek@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Imagine not just punting goblins into the chasm but punting them into fire. Or that one on a scaffolding you drag towards you. And the bookshelf is now a projectile!

      BATTLEFIELD CHAOS!

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The thing to know is 4E (and every edition going back to the original, which was just a dungeon crawler) was much more combat focused. 5E is much more roleplay focused. That’s fine, but I think the strengths of the game (since the RP has to pre-built options, not full freedom which is what 5E does well) is the combat.

      I started playing TTRPGs with Pathfinder (which is basically DnD 3.5 expanded into it’s own system, now on 2E). The amount of viable options in combat is so much better. Im fine with tabletop being dnd 5e because it’s simpler and more accessible, but a video game where the rules are baked and you don’t need to look things up or rule lawyer, something like Pathfinder or other versions of DnD might be better, at least for the combat portion.

      There are Pathfinder games though that I haven’t tried yet but I’ve heard are good. I’m planning on checking those out sometime after BG3 (and Armored Core, and Starfield, and Payday 3, and maybe other things about to come out).