Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Why is Tav the least interesting character?

I think the problem is that the story of Baldur's Gate 3 isn't Tav's story. In most crpgs with a blank slate protagonists the protagonist is the main character. BG3 isn't about Tav, it's about whichever character the player happens to be controlling. That's why the Dark Urge isn't a solution for most people (combined with the visceral violence which certainly kept me away). People say that Tav needed their own unique backstory stuff because otherwise they just have nothing that makes them special. In every other crpg, the main character has their own unique story; it's called the main plot. The story isn't actually built around Tav, so Tav feels lacking. It goes back to my first point, that Tav isn't meant to be a character you roleplay as or get invested in. They're just the tool you use to decide what content you want to see.

I finished my first run through BG3 as a Tav at the weekend, and it was the most I've ever enjoyed playing a character I created myself in a video game. Back when I played Skyrim, I levelled up with whatever I was using at the time, and basically built an avatar of myself with no personality. My BG3 character was developed basically as I would a D&D character, and she is definitely *not* me.

Starting with a rough character idea (elevator pitch: "introverted bard"), I thought during the early game about what her personality might be like, a bit of backstory, and how being thrown into the story might affect her. My D&D characters are often fairly unremarkable people thrown into extraordinary circumstances. Over the next few levels I built up a deeper idea of her personality between my imagination, what seemed right in the game, and things I could pick out from the voice acting and animations.

So my character became an independent person in the game world and not my avatar. She gets scared of some of the missions. She gets angry at the slavers even if the party is horribly outnumbered. She has her own opinions of the origin characters. So yes, this is the first time I've actually created a proper new character for a video game. I absolutely recommend it and will be doing it in any other CRPG where you create a character from a blank sheet, but if you don't want to do that there are origin characters to choose from instead. Personally I'm planning to play as Astarion next (lawful evil run to contrast my chaotic good run).

I don't think BG2 is a fair comparison, because as I understand it you are a specific character in that game, even if you can customise them: you're a Bhaalspawn; whereas in BG3 you're just a random person plucked from the streets of Baldur's Gate. Through the game the narrator did give me several bits of information, and I could use speech, based of living in Baldur's Gate. According to the Forgotten Realms wiki, over 100,000 people live in Baldur's Gate so clearly only a part of the city is actually explorable in the game. The people my character knew must be somewhere else - and at level 1 she can't have been _that_ famous.

Lets flip the questions around (btw I agree with what you are saying).

Why DOES IT WORK in the previous Baldur's Gate games??? At least I think it does brilliantly.

Yea there is a background story for your family and your destiny is tied to the storyline. But you could be from anywhere any kind of race, different experiences etc...
I just dont get people saying "well thats not ME or MY character"...WHY NOT??? You have plenty of options to make your character's story unique. Then the game story and Role Playing takes over.
BG3 does THE EXACT SAME THING with the story. Its linear. Its deliberate. So why not add some more interesting background story elements to the TAV like previous Baldurs Gate games? Larian takes a HUGE shortcut for this. The ending basically. What about the beginning?
Its like Larian is telling us : YOU CREATE THE STORY. I'm not a writer, and not particularly good at imagining a detailed INTERESTING background story for my Tav, and even If I did.... Thats why I BOUGHT YOUR GAME. Give me something for my Tav. And interesting story, and I can fill in the details. This isn't an MMO.

Tav character is as hollow and boring as a dead tree trunk. Making TAV "my own" doesn't change that. No solid hook to the world or story (its the companions). Thats why people are desperate for relationships / romances in this game. One of the few things that shapes your TAV and can make it interesting.

This is a great way to describe Tav and also how this game works.

I'm sorry but I cannot buy the claim, just on face value, that the Dark Urge is not that dark, and that there are such thngs as a "good" Dark Urge with a "good" ending. I need convincing, based on facts from the game, because everything I've read from a range of sources thus far paint a very different picture. Furthermore, as some others have already stated right here in this thread, playing the Dark Urge does come with having to deal with your character being associated with some pretty horrific actions. And to me, it does not matter if those "dark' things are in the character's background or in the form of dreams. Playing "good" means, for me, not having my character associated with such horrible and nasty things.

Larian made many, many mistakes with BG3, including some really big ones. But arguably their biggest mistake was creating the Dark Urge option for players, thereby demonstrating that they *could* provide such an option if they wanted to, and then *not* providing an equal and parallel 'Light Urge' option.

A common theme in mythology and fantasy, is this person coming from a formidable background ( a king's son or even demigod) whose life is in danger shortly after birth and must be saved by hiding as a simple peasant or towndweller child. As he or she (I'll use they for the rest of the post) grows up, a kind of predestined path opens up and will restore them to the glory of their ancestors.

I see my Tavs in this light. Isn't it strange that everyone automatically considers me as the party's leader ? And that Withers and the Gods choose to help Tav's party on their quest ? So this is my headcanon. Even though Tav is unaware of teir great origins during the entire BG3 adventure. What the game could do, IMO, is to leave some writings and prophecies about a person (who will be Tav, without you knowing it) who, coming from seemingly humble beginnings, will rise to the greatness of their ancestors and save the world and become a great and just ruler.

It should even be possible to make these prophecies semi-dynamic to match the race and background you choose for Tav at character creation, so it could explicitly mention a drow, duergar or human liberator... Little by little Tav may feel that this prophecy is about them. There could even be some dream scenes after reading these prophecies. IMO that would be a nice way to make Tav more interesting, without compromising the freedom to choose a character race/class and background.

I don't think that a prophecy would help this issue for several reasons. The most obvious being that it seems people have generally lost interest in prophecy stories and playing chosen ones, so that's not gonna grab a lot of people. Secondly, what you're suggesting, while interesting, would require some structural changes to the game. I think that for it to work, the prophecy would need to be a central aspect of the story, not just a random addition. It would need to be something Tav considers and msues on frequently. The prophecy would need to be their story, and so it would need to be important. The prophecy has to DO something, it can't just just be an extra detail. That ties into whole thing you say about Tav automatically being considered the leader and Withers etc choosing to help them; it's not unique to Tav. If you play as an origin that stuff all plays out the same, which is the root of the problem. The game isn't about Tav and so long as origin characters exist the way they do, it can't be.

@kanisatha


Which one are the big ones in your oppinion?

Purely my opinion, of course: not making Tav central to the game and the story; the origin companions concept; not enough good-aligned companions; party size of 4 instead of 6; how party movement works; dialog options not reflecting the full range of options, especially "good" options; having meaningful consequences to choices; too many design decisions made to support co-op at the expense of single-player; avoiding combat results in outcomes not as good/beneficial/effective as going the combat route; maybe a few others I'm not remembering right now.

Interesting that you feel that's one of the "Big mistakes"

Given that BG3 is actually one of the best RPG's for making non-combat options comparable to combat ones, with nice exp gains for non-combat options and a relatively low level cap means the usual concern of it being so much better for exp gain to just murder everything is less prominent (Though, it still has that annoying thing where you can maximize exp gain by using non-combat dialogue options... Then murdering everyone anyway)

Sure, it's not perfect (It generally won't ever be so long as combat provides experience) but it good enough where it doesn't feel horrible to bypass combat.

I agree about the non-combat options. I have done each of the Thorm siblings and Yurgir twice in one run because I think that they are both fun combat encounters and incredibly good dialogue scenes, so I do have a hard time choosing a route to go. On the plus side, if speech fails the resulting mess is still enjoyable.

Personally, I am in the minority who really don't like blank slate characters and even Durge feels too much like a soulless husk to me. I would have wished they had put a little bit more effort into the Origins-as-Avatars in some situations.

You make a fair point. But the thing for me is that although experience, and also loot, matter, what matters most is quest/story outcomes. And it is here that I feel BG3 falls short a lot, where quest/story outcomes/results are inferior (by my reckoning) when you go the noncombat route than when you engage in combat.

Larian's avoidance of making the custom player character the protagonist of their games is one of the reasons I struggle to get as invested in their games as I do other crpgs. It's very possible to let the player customize their character *and* have that character be the protagonist due to some kind of circumstance that ties them into the world and the story. Off the top of my head, the games that do this include: BG1 + BG2, all the Dragon Age games (especially DAO and DAI), NWN2, Pathfinder: Kingmaker + WotR, Warhammer 40k: Rogue Trader, Jade Empire, KotoR 1 + 2, Pillars of Eternity. I'm sure there are others I'm missing.

But in these games, the player character is customizable to some degree (appearance/gender/class/sometimes race) and has a plot reason to be at the center of the story, whether that's because of something in their backstory or because of something that happens to them at the beginning of the game. For example, Pathfinder: Kingmaker begins with a blank slate protagonist who nonetheless becomes the heart of the story. No other character can replace them as that heart.

With Tav, something does happen to them at the beginning of the game, but it isn't unique to them. Because Larian favors their origin characters, whatever character you play will have the same tadpole connection to the plot, but origin characters get *extra.* Tav gets no unique quest, they basically just act as a supporting character to everyone else. Tav feels more like the blank slate characters in Icewind Dale and NWN1, where the PC is the one who does stuff to move the quest forward but has no personal reason to do so, if you stop and think about it (other than basic self-preservation).

For other players, I'm sure Larian's origin system is really effective and preferable. It just isn't for me. I want my character to have a story arc and a special place in the story and the world, not be an interchangeable "avatar."

Edit: I do appreciate that Durge is customizable, and I enjoyed playing Durge. However, while I am fine with the backstory being predetermined, I wasn't super thrilled with aspects of my Durge's personality being predetermined (like engaging in certain uh practices).

This is it exactly for me as well. And for me, this is a very major issue in terms of my reaction to and satisfaction with a game.

If I recall correctly, the data tends to show that Origin characters are by far the least played. So it's not just you but most people don't have much interest in playing an Origin character compared to creating one (Especially true when Origin characters are also companions you meet early into the game, meaning you basically already get a playthrough with an Origin character regardless of it you start as one or not. With only a few extra scenes/dialogues being the difference)

Meaning that this "Bland, faceless PC character" concept only really has the benefit of allowing for more versatility in character design. Such as allowing Eternal characters in Divinity or Dragonborn in BG3.

That is, without the drawbacks of either having to create multiple background scenarios to establish the races (Like how DA:O does where human and dwarf characters have different prologues, with mages also differing from the standard human background) or trying to create some weird generic story for why such varied races with wildly different cultures end up having the same backstory.

Which requires more work than simply sticking in a blank slate.

I don't think the problem lies in the backstory aspect. As I and others have pointed out, other games pull off entirely blank slate, no background PCs. The Pathfinder games both do it. The problem is that the narrative of the game doesn't really connect with the main character. The main character is a victim of circumstance, but so is every other player character. In Kingmaker, you're the leader. You're the one who takes charge of the party and leads, and because of that leadership you become duchess and eventually the monarch. The story is centered around you at all times. The conceit of the story requires you. Yet you can still literally be anyone from anywhere.

I would say both.
Tav, she/he has no real backstory (it's just rnd backgrounds or loose backgrounds from the other companions). She/he is not important to the story in BG3.
Such an unimportant character is usually found in an MMO.

this is a great feedback.
and i used to heard from official talk that maintains -- "tav will be a special one that compares with other original characters".
then i receive the disappiontment.

about d-rurge, acturally, you are playing tav-urge, not d-urge.
since d-urge is in a way that is impossible to cure, or he/she has resisted all murder urge 15 years ago.

the importance is that the original characters eventrally are just npcs, just replaceable npcs, it's meanless put players' souls into the original characters to have the views, because some options' saving throws only tav can pass, even the options only appear for tav.

Not really generic. More like stipped out of defining features.

Designing custom protagonist whom player can characterise through dialogue, and designing blank slate are two different things.

Larian's "origin" design means they need a neutral non-discript core dialogue tree that can work for every character they created, which then they spice up with character specific interactions for each origin. As Tav you mostly get just neutral non-discript dialogue.

Still, BG3 is far far better due to a generous amount of race/class specific options (though I found those to be somewhat problematic as well at times) than D:OS2.

It honestly isn't too bad, but it is not in the same league as some my my favourite custom protagonist RPGs. It's unfortunate side effect of BG3 trying to deliver as many options as possible, resulting in each of those options being somewhat underbaked.

It is good to have a blank character to allow people to roleplay their way.