Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Having all companions as "origins" is a poor idea

Just a other Divinity copy/paste...

I don't believe that were all of them, though I don't think an exact number have been confirmed either. Closest I can think of is recent RPS video on the game. In it it is mention that each companion is written by seperate writer, except from a closely tied pair which is written by the same person. So, does anyone know how many writers are working on BG3?
https://youtu.be/u0mdQF92N_w?t=190

Keep in mind that it is a coop game - "companions" act as NPC and PC - if you can pick any of them as your character they need to appear at the start of the adventure. Possibly some of them could pop up later if player doesn't pick them as their PC.

I agree with the OP.

Showing us all of the potential companions already during the character screen creation is completely absurd.

I hated it in divinity original sin 2 and I really hope that Larian will change it.

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comme...l2?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x

If Larian does what the say they are going to do and have all companions of Origin Characters. Does that mean all Origin characters going to have tadpoles in their head because we can play them? Or only because we play them tadpoles will be in their heads?

I would like some of the origin characters not to have tadpoles in their heads when we meet them along the way and not during the beginning area. I don't want all my choices of companions to die before the second act.

No loss?
Development time and resources that could have gone into other things are a loss in my book.

You rock, tuco!
Your point is well-taken.

Thank you, suspiciously young account that agrees with me a bit too enthusiastically.

Sorry, Drow, just kidding.Thank you for your support.
t's just that I can easily see someone taking these traits as proof that you would be my fake account or something.

The thought had never crossed my mind! I'd normally want to see some actual proof, but now that you've brought it up...

I think a good compromise would be to have customizable companion personality.

A backstory/personality that is non-specific enough that can be attached to most classes/races.
Then when you create you custom companion, you simply add one of the few backstories/personalities provided.

The "banished from his village for an honest mistake/accident" might work for any class/race, "searching for lost family haierloom" too.
"Survivor of an orc raid that wiped out his village", again, works for most.

Add a quest or two for each (with appropriately generated NPC's...it would be weird if an elven mages parents were human) and you have something that shouldn't be too resource intensive, but gives mercenaries/custom companions some more depth and anchors them more into the world.

That's more or less what DOS 2 did but I have to say I'm not a fan.
It's convenient, sure, but it comes at expenses of making that character feel well rounded and believable.

Agree again.
"Mercenaries" with custom background aren't well written inhabitants of the world...




Yea everyone having the same goal (remove tadpole) would suck a lot.
We have to meet them during our journey and not during "tutorial...". This wouldn't be realistic nor fun...

(Oh damn, it's like that in D:oS so that's probably what 's going to happen in BG3...)

To answer the OP directly:

It's up to Larian what they want to spend their resources on, but...
- I would want enough companions to offer a fairly full mix of race/class/alignment ( 12+ maybe? )
- I would prefer these NOT be Origin companions if that significantly reduces the total number of characters
- I would prefer that the existence of Origin companions is not evident before you meet them ( i.e. You can't see/pick them until you have met them in a previous play-through )

I think this means I agree with you

More generally, I have not played D:OS2, so I have not seen this playable companion idea before. I am exclusively a single-player gamer, and with RPGs I will always prefer to play "me", ( or if the game is good, several different versions of "me" ). So, unless I am forced to play a particular named character, the chance that I will actually play as any of these characters is probably nil ( as is the likelihood that I will have Astarion in my party at all if there is any alternative ).

I think the origins aspect of Dragon Age: Origins worked because you played through the origin story, but it was still your character. If Larian had an optional "Origins story" choice that you could attach to your character as you generate it ( i.e. an expanded D&D background choice) , that would be a way of adding some depth and dialogue choices without having to build it into a fixed companion - though clearly it might not be possible to make the story as deep.

Obviously, if these Origin characters exist solely to facilitate MP, then I care even less about them, but would be disappointed if their existence reduced the overall companion roster too much.

For all i dont get the praise that dragon age gets (i think its a dull franchise with one of the dullest fantasy settings ever conceived) , the Origins system was a great idea (in origins, in inquisition what little background you got to pick based off your race was insignificant) and it allowed much more freedom of character itnerpretation than this does

I think it hearkens back to the idea of a Role Playing game.
the emphass beeing both on ROLE and on PLAYING.

A fantasy world is, at its core, still a world. You are playing a Role within that World and you fulfill it to the extent thats expected of it. A wizard casts spells. A Dwarf drinks beer and says things are dwarven work.
At the same time. PLAYING is also important.
HOW do you fulfill that role? How do you act it out and expand on it.

I think Larians origin system gets the ROLE right but the PLAYING wrong. Even if you get multiple ways to progress that characters story.



Naturally a lot of contemporary RPGs get the ROLE part wrong aswell. Hence why they keep doing away with class and race restrictions and the like.
but thats a whole nother can of worms.

I just really, really do not want all of the companions to share the same situation (tadpoles) like they did in DoS2. It sucked that every character shared the same situation and.. the ending stuff.

I want to meet people at different points and for different reasons.

Very much agree.

I also agree with this not every companion needs to have a tadpole inside there heads why limit yourself when you can have other companions like Minsc and Boo

If tadpoles are used as an explanation to every anomaly (super jump, super strength, super push, mindmeld with companions) and central theme of the game revolves around accepting or rejecting it's power, then yes, every "Companons" needs to have one. Just as if BG1&2 were coop focused game then everyone would need to be a child of Bhaal, to be central to the story and conflict, and face the same dilemma. Tadpoles seem to fill the role of Source from D:OS2 so well, it is difficult as of now to expect anything different.

As far as narrative devices go, it is not a bad - gives every player a unified objective, while allowing them to be their own character. As mindflayers abduct ton of people, it is not difficult to imagine that all of the survivors would be infected.

Traditionally, this pressure applies to PC only to give them overriding objective, while allowing for a range of characters to be roleplayed. Meantime companions act as sound boards for game's themes, world and players choices... but it ain't your classic RPG, it's Larian RPG.

Okay you make some good points but still I want Minsc and Boo as a companion so I hope Larian finds away of making Minsc have the tadpole

If we are making DoS2 comparisons all the companions in Dos2 are chosen ones of some god or devil, but they also had their own motivations, goals and companion quests to fulfil. Also, you find old friends, enemies, acquaintances, etc in the world if you take that companion with you, as with any companion in other games. The only thing I found lacking in the companions is the fact that they do not talk to each other, but their stories? they are far above the level and depth of the average CRPGs today.

The fact that all of them are sorcerers are the reason they are together on the same ship, but they have very different reasons to be there and you can achieve different endings of their subquests in the game.



So I do not think that having an origin story has that huge impact on the resources and cut a lot of content of the game, at least that doesn´t happen in previous Larian´s games. In fact, the origins stories give you a lot of reasons to replay the game to see how it plays out if you do things differently with another character.

If origin reduce the numbers of "well written" companion we could probably talk about numbers...

DoS2 is 6 companions and 3 slot to recruit = only 20 combinations (less if you take an origin character).
DA:O is 9 companions and 3 slots = 84 combinations
PK is 11 companions and 5 slot to recruit = 462 combinations

Of course, these possibilities are reduced if you consider affinities/alignement and classes you need in your team but this is (also) related to what players like so we can't talk about this objectively.
This is also related to party numbers but we can see that both slots AND numbers of companion have a huge impact on players choices.

BG1&2 had many more combinations, that's why they can easily add affitinies between characters, alignement considerations, "duo" such Minsc/Dynahéir and Khalid/Jaheira.... This is not really possible in D:OS if you want player to have minimum choices.

If you don't like ONE companion in BG3 considering it's the same as in D:OS2 (I personnaly don't want a vampire in my party), it's only 10 possibilites left so nearly no possibility to customize your party if you consider something else than "numbers".