Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Will there be a Prologue, before your capture?

Nah, I disagree .You are "assumed to be Balduran" only in the very moment you pick that specific option, for how I see it.
It's the in-game moment you are offered the chance to stick to your "head canon" and say "Oh yeah, that's me, totally a Balduran" or say "Nope, my character biography no one will ever care about says I'm from [insert exotic place here]".

Good point. I only said as such due to the Character Information tab in the game that marks you down as Balduran, but you are very much right. It is how you perceive your character that counts not the opinion of others.

I'm not sure I'm following this.
Do you mean that, unless you choose that option, it isn't canon information? I can see that being true for matters of opinion, such as how you respond to someone worshipping an evil deity, but with such things as race, and place of birth, is that really a matter of head-canon?
Or do you mean that, because the particulars of the custom MC are so variable, any choice involving their backstory might as well be inconsequential because the game will only ever pay lip service to it?

Edit: I've also been operating under the assumption that only being Baldurian was a EA limitation, like our current race selection.

Is the tag even already there before you pick that dialogue option? I didn't bother to check, but if the answer was "no" it would implicitly address a lot of things.

That is why I'd suggest a separate Tutorial that is self contained and launched from a separate menu, and which can be skipped if desired.

Of course it drags if you try to extend the tutorial into the Mind Flayer ship and then onto the beach as well, that approach is inefficient. It stalls the story launch, screws the pacing, and gives only a piecemeal tutorial at best, since you can't cover everything when the tutorial is set... on a crashing Nautiloid.

Some things you could do in a more standard Tutorial that would be helpful...

Movement and Cam control
Action tutorial to highlight stuff like jump, hide, dash, throw, etc with prompts and situations for each.
Extended Combat tutorials, both solo and grouped, first with an emphasis on basic attacks/actions advantage, shoving pinning dipping etc, but leading into more nuanced support stuff.
Extended Non-Combat or Pre-Combat tutorials, for buffs, healing or stuff like stealing, or convo related like guidance or friends etc.
Spellcasting more generally, with spell prep explaining what cantrips are or how they're different from spells, also consumables.
Hotbar tutorial (and hopefully a spellbook tutorial, if it ever gets its own UI element.)
Resting tutorial, to explain short rest vs long rest or the camp dynamic.
help downed PC and restoration tutorial (someone gets dead)
Map, Mini Map, Journal and quest tracking tutorial.
Leveling tutorial. Like lvl up a temporary companion, so players can get a sense of how that works with some throw away tutorial NPC companion, low pressure decision.
Equipment and Inventory management, send to group/camp, Barter etc tutorial.

The reason to have PCs buy their starting equipment is primarily because its entertaining and traditional for lvl1 adventures, but also to help introduce the game's internal economy and establish its floor... But again, mainly as an excuse to tutor the new player on Inventory and Equipment management, Barter or Merchant menus and skills related to them.

In its current 5e incarnation we have...
Fighters and Priests 5d4 × 10 gp
Rouges and Wizards 4d4 × 10 gp

But in an actual tutorial level you can play it up even more by class archetype or background, if you put that at or near the end of the tutorial.

Right now there are only what, like 10 backgrounds in this game? Is that really "too many variables" to manage?

I mean this is supposed to be a AAA title isn't it? This isn't lunchtime cafeteria fare lol, they should put in the work. Currently the game assumes a high degree of familiarity or prior experience with D&D or maybe Divinity systems, and doesn't do a whole lot to introduce and explain them. I think they should carve out a separate space for this, separate from the main game I mean. Again so that the tutor beats can follow on one after the next until everything is covered, without intruding on the actual story and getting in the way for a returning player or re-rolled toons. If its separate, then its easier to make optional. There for people who need or enjoy it, skip for those who don't/

The tutorial shouldn't bleed into the main story such that players who already know all this stuff have to muddle through it again and again in each replay. Certainly not once we're on the beach, that's way too far into the game for tutorial stuff to still be happening. There's no need to reduplicate, if its covered in the tutorial it could be removed from the current EA prologue, streamlining it so the prologue pacing isn't bogged down by the need to also serve as the tutorial.

I haven't played all the races, but everyone I have is tagged Baldurian from the start, except the Gith and a Lolthsworn.

After doing a little search this is the best I could find on the matter, from an reddit AMA There's still plenty of leeway either way from this eight month old statement (further afield? does that mean the Underdark races, or someone who wants to be from Calimshan?) but I think the fact [Baldurian] is Tagged! makes it variable, otherwise it would be unique in that regard, no? I'm too afraid to go into the Datamining thread to see if there's something there...pity me.

There should be more tooltips for these type things but this can be easily done on the ship or the first instance of something (like with the Help action or the first visit to a shop.) Should be able to turn this off in menu options as well.



The trade/barter thing should definitely be made more clear but I am pretty sure none of us were abducted while on a shopping trip, buying gear would make no sense. It is ok for DnD but nearly all the video games I play have started you off with basic equipment or nothing.


Yes it is.

Take the Criminal background as an example. Were you in a guild or freelance or something else? What type of criminal were you? Thief, spy, enforcer, bandit, murderer, gambler or something else. These are only some ideas but I don't want to write a whole page on this. How would you incorporate these into something for everyone? The typical version is being a thief and part of a guild. Completely immersion breaking for someone who wants to be a bandit and may never enter a city, or an infiltrator who would never steal. Some options in dialogue would be fine, you can simply not pick them if they don't apply, but using this in a tutorial would be horrible.

I have said many times that they should maybe add custom templates for people that have a hard time coming up with things but leave the current custom option for the rest of us.

If its text based I can't imagine it being all that hard. I mean how long did it take you to brainstorm that one for the "criminal" background? pretty much every potentiality you just laid out could be presented in convo with an NPC at the end of the tutorial. An Innkeep or barmaid or anyone really could step in to present the Qs for the background branching. Not as directly as you just laid out like "what kind of criminal are you?" but in essence exactly that. You can cast a broad net and build out the background aspect in text convo and in that way have a template conveyed in a more natural way. By putting it at the end of a tutorial, and reinforcing the idea that the tutorial and custom character creation are bridged concepts.

Anyone who isn't interested in the Tutorial can just advance their character straight to the Prologue on the crashing ship with the default equipment.

I think there is certainly a way that all this could be built into the current Prologue, but then I think it would weigh it down from a pacing standpoint, even if you're skipping past every tutorial prompt. and just trying to blast through the encounters. I'd rather be able to skip the whole thing at that point and start at the beach.

Takes no time at all to come up with this stuff really. The problem is you have to do this with each background, race, and class. Then mix the combinations: race/background, class/race, background/class. Then all 3 together. Then hope you didn't miss something. Even more combinations since they are apparently adding the stupid alignment tag. All of this takes time and budget. I think they could use a few custom templates with a small paragraph of backstory (examples: Tiefling Urchin Rogue, Wood Elf Outlander Ranger) and then leave the free option we have now as the real custom one.

To answer, since I just started playing the intro again as a human, it clearly says Balduran in the character information tab on the ship starting off. At least for now, all are considered from Baldur's Gate that are not Drow (Both are considered not of BG) or Githyanki. That may change further down the road, but for right now that is the default, but as you did say, you don't have to pick those options and still say you aren't from there. It is after all just a tag on a character sheet.

Modern tutorials seem to go by a philosophy of, assume the basics are known, introduce non-basic functions slowly, reinforce those once or twice after, they're perfectly willing to do this well into the game, for a lot of the same reasons people seem to want to avoid adding to the nautiloid level, it makes the story artificially paced, catering to very meta-game constraints.Setting their gold to zero and kicking your PCs out into the harsh world also gives them an appreciation for the economy and their inventory...and it's quite entertaining too. The only real problem I have with this is how it adds nothing to the actual game, if it's stand alone, merely for the purpose of training newbie to D&D or CRPGs, then why not just let them learn from the game they'll be playing? And story-wise, why put time into a stand alone tutorial level that won't matriculate into the actual narrative of the game?

In a different tutorial/start scenario though? or dialog with the tadpole in the character creation screen? You could have the narrator comment on choices made in the character creation part as well.

Personally the option with the tavern is still my favorite, the mind probing just suits the current narrative better, which is compelling in its own way,




Hadn't considered that one could lie when giving those answers heh. Lae'Zel would also be a good point to ask some questions about the player character's past.



I don't remember but doesn't the character roll a wisdom check for the cowering? like later with the gith gang? I get it though, would be nice to see the character's traits define how the tutorial plays out more



The tutorial can be included within the main story and doesn't have to be as stiff as in baldurs gate if you ask me, its already quite alright.
It worked for me in baldurs gate but I thought it was a bit like running a course that was set up just for that day, the entire candlekeep section.
Going through all of the menu might be a bit much, some things like crafting can wait quite a bit, otherwise people just skip most of the tutorial.

The skipping of the tutorial would be an issue if there are character creation selections to be made

I like the background specific tutorials! great place to be picked up by mindflayers as well.



what's that option?



Oh yeah, I totally forgot that the entire character creation already kind of is a mind probing

I wonder what style Larian will go with when doing the origin exposition in character creation, DOS2 was pretty neat with the little introduction every character had. It doesn't translate well into custom characters so I hope they choose more of a collage style, a slide show like you suggested

I think the biggest hurdle to adding anything before the start of the game is how they've intercut the opening cutscene -> character creation -> the attack cutscene -> player control. They've put a lot of time and money behind them so anything like what we're talking about would have to work around them, such as making the character creation segment more extensive, involving a slightly more in depth look at your background, city of origin, and personality, possibly through more extensive interaction with "who we dream of". Even having a sequence with you in the pod talking to the other prisoners "between the bars" doesn't quite work considering you could be any origin character. The easiest way and least compelling is doing everything retroactively, which leads into the next point.
This point to me has been a real Achilles' Heel of RPG characterization for a while now, the way people develop their characters is through their actions and interactions with other people, The way you act might seem pretty straightforward but the motivations behind them aren't, consider our Grove-Goblin conflict, you don't need to be good to help out the Tieflings, your motivations can be totally selfish or altruistic, but the only way for the game to know that is through explicitly having your character talk about it, either with your companions or with themselves. This causes a problem, because your companions can like or dislike you, a whole system of min-max approval/disapproval gains take over from the role playing. Are you saying that because you believe it or because you want them to like you, are lying to them because you're a deceptive person or because the game rewards you for doing so. It's a game design that rewards the PC who is one of those high-functioning sociopaths, they don't have a externalized personality because all their interactions with other people go through these machinations. That's why I liked the mind probe scenario because it gets around the retroactive character building that is in play right now, which is subject this paradigm.

To give a few examples of this I found in the EA:

If double crossing Zevlor, he asks you why!?! you respond by saying, all hail the Absolute....what? does that mean I'm a true believer now? Am I just saying that to be shitty? I couldn't tell you.

Astarion comes upon us at night, revealing his need for blood, because I think he's a dreamy bad-boy I can 'fix', I let him 'neck' with me, the next morning the camp knows his true nature, and inquires into my disposition, I make clear, privately, that if anyone catches him sucking someone's blood, he's to be killed, I then ask Astarion if he'd be interested in a repeat of last night....what's going on here, am I trying to murder him the hard way? Am I just saying what I think everyone wants to hear? ...Am I jealous? Bite me sempai!

Like I said, pet peeve

It only takes over from the role playing if the player lets it.

But yeah, there is an issue in that the expressed preferences of the PC may not indicate anything more than the PC's desire to avoid some conflict with certain NPCs. CRPGs don't have enough options where we can have the PC say something which is flagged as a lie.

lol...huh - wait, does that mean we're really the tadpole?

By that logic no interaction between me and the game needs to take place, it can all be done on my end. That isn't a dig, that's what you have to do with a lot of older games. It's perfectly valid, but it's not what I find interesting about narrative RPGs.
At the end of the day you have to come to terms with the fact that the computer DM only has a limited number of moves to make, but making a compelling and adaptive world for you play around with is what I want from these games.

Wait, what? My point was that the PC should be able to lie to the NPCs.

The point I was trying to make here is that you can't lie in a game that doesn't distinguish between the internal and the external.
I thought your point was that you as the player had to pick up the slack for the internal.(I'm choosing this option but in my head-canon, I'm really just avoiding conflict)
sorry if I missed it.
...yes, we should be able to lie, that's much more succinct that what I did...