Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General BG3, DOS and the D&D rule-set

What do you mean by narrative design and weak companions? I agree map design and "level-locked" areas was a problem but I think that'll be fixed just by the significant decrease in leveling speed. I thought the companions we're very interesting and rather well made. I wish there was more interaction but story wise I was very invested. I also thought the story was pretty good. Nice plot twists and made me felt important.

If you want my full thoughts, click here
In short: what is D:OS2 about? Every coherent adventure has a core around which everything revolves and D:OS2 is all over the place. Then there are more...hmm.. technical issues? Character motivations making no sense, people being unaware to what is happening 5km away from them, characters aren’t immersed in the world around them - they don’t react nor speak in a way that would make sense.

Same with companions - I described it in my post as “twitch” writing. Things a snarky coop-player would say, not a character existing in the moment. I blame that (as well as lack of identity, motivations, personality, reactivity, lack of interactions with the player and each other) on coop design - after all “companions” are empty vessels to be possessed by fellow player, not a full-fledged character to interact with the player and possibly reflect and resonate important aspects of the story and world. D:OS2 companions come with a plot, but not personality - who is Red Prince? He has a short backstory, and objectives to complete but other then that he is an empty shell. And unfortunately, if no one controls Red Prince and defines who he is, he remains empty for the rest of the game. The fact, that companions usually have the same line to read should be a warning sign.

D:OS2 has good bits, but those are short and barely explored. And I also think that what D:OS2 did with companions is brilliant - if you play the game in Coop, which unfortunately I am not quite able to do nowadays, but I would kill for D:OS1&2 in college. And now we get to BG3 - an IP which figured how to focus story around protagonist and create cool characters to surround him. Something that’s been expanded and improved upon in RPGs that follow. And it’s something Origin system simply goes against.

Though generally super excited about this title and trust Larian to do their best, I kinda share your misgivings about the origin characters.

It is a bit like playing with premade characters in TableTop: it can be done, it can even be fun at times but it kills a major part of the game, that is creating your own hero to experience the world the DM is building for you.

On the other hand, using Origin characters present a unique opportunity for the writers to create PCs with a real, living and breathing backstory (something I think is always lacking with custom build heroes). For instance, the reason I could never immerse myself with Pathfinder: Kingmaker, is that I felt my protagonist was a total stranger in the game world: they had no past, no personal connections, no nothing.

With its several Origin PCs, I hope BG3 will be able to really situate the player as a character in the game univers.

I reckon the first Dragon Age game really hit the aurea mediocritas there with their origin stories: it was still customizable but with a unique backstory for every new play-through with real consequences throughout the narrative (though imo they could have developed the system further).

In the end, I am hoping that the many origins story Larian is writing (beyond 10 I believe), I will find someone I can really relate to.

I am also curious about what Swen stated about their custom made characters that they will have connection to the game world (even though I am skeptical, as i said I don't think custom heroes will be able to compete with the Origin heroes' immersion in the narrative). Despite all of this, I will surely try a custom hero play-through (I have already built several builds via my Tabletop softwares and sheets, I know, I am such a f... nerd).

And about Larian writing style, I think the developers are really focusing on upping their narratives to a whole new level with this game, hiring a new squad of writers from the get go.

I think Kingmaker's issue is a bit different, and it is an issue D:OS2 shares - not really allowing players to express who their characters are. Even BG2, as most Bioware RPGs, which isn't great on reactivity or role-playing bit does often question and confront player on his motivations. That's a bit of role-playing that planescape nailed - not only what you do, but why you do it, what you think etc. At the very beginning of PoE1 you have conversation with a temporary companion which is using background you have picked in character creation in which you can make a statement as to who your character is. This is not reactivity I am talking about BTW (Pathfinder has a lot of choice&consequence, but I don't feel it reflects on my character or how the world sees my character), but game giving player space to express their character - and then if appropriate react to it.

In D:OS2 I think this weight lies on your coop buddies. Companions or NPC aren't set up to react to you, question you or challenge you. They will nicelt fall in line, in spite of conflicting objectives, because no one is controlling them - so who cares.

No things I liked in BG3 demo which made me come to this forum - conversation seem so much much better. Both in options are your disposal and overall quality of interactions. Goblin camp looked like lots of fun, with systemic freedom but also with handcrafter reactions and scenarios with different outcomes. In companion conversation in the demo you got drilled and critiqued on your take on the demon guy - that's great! You get to express your character, and companion gets to express herself.

If game is filled with that kind of content, custom character might work just fine!

As far as I know, in Pathfinder:kingmaker game you do not have a premade character, you can do a character from scratch, choosing everything from alignment to race to skills to class and backstory and you have unique dialogues for different character builds and plenty of reply options; not the dialogue wheel with 3 responses that is common in many games and even thought they do not ask about your past you have plenty of conversations about what you did or the decisions you made in the game or the consequences of that actions in the midgame and beyond.
Heck, you even have different outcomes that rely on your decisions in the Varnhold DLC.

Companions have plenty to say about the world, the latest news or your decisions or have conversations between them at camp. They also leave you or turn against you if you just ignore them or you´ve been a plain jerk. In that regard they the devs of Owlcat have my approval.

There are plenty of fantastic games with a premade character with an story forced into you (Witcher, Mass effect, Last of us, Max Payne, most JRPGS, etc) but you sometimes want the freedom of a character entirely made by you.


Good thing origin characters are optional for people that do not like this kind of feature, but allows other people to enjoy them if they´re into it.

I am hopeful, too. Until now, everything they showed us was promising. The environment (the first dnd game ever where the spell Fly could be a thing), the companions (as you pointed out, these npcs wont be passive puppets, they will confront your PC about his/her bullshit). I am also curious if some of the companions will bail on you after the first act when you get rid of the tadpoles (like you playing a good guy and the githyanki gets fed up with your soft attitude at some point after she is freed from the parasite).

And looking at the Torment or Witcher 3, maybe having a premade character already present in the world is the secret of great RPG story-telling. This thought that makes me kinda excited about the origin stories despite of myself (who likes to customize everything).

Also, I don't think the coop focus is as strong as it was in Divinity 2, (I can be wrong, we have very little information about the game so far).




I wasn't saying Kingmaker had origins characters (though it has premades for beginners to chose from), the exact opposite of that, it has complete customization. And, I agree Kingmaker has the surface level rpg features, like multiple endings depending on your "choices", but has no internal characterization, the story could happen to anybody the exact same way, your pc is faceless and voiceless (I don't mean literally, though the pc character is not voiced, I mean in the sense that you have internal persona, no voice in the story).

And I really don't mean to shit on the Owlcat guys, I backed their kickstarter, I played the game and I thought it was fine. An excellent combat simulator for the 1st Edition Pathfinder ruleset, but not a good RPG imo.

I have high hopes for BG3 on this regard. I think they are on the right path to create a good RPG.

kingmakers PC still beats ny premade in beeing an RPG.

premade PCs are only "RPG" in the same sense JRPGs are.

the idea that Kingmaker is "superficially" an RPG is ridiculous.
Its one of those games that activeley tries hard to be an RPG

I reckon Planescape:Torment is a pretty decent western rpg and so is Witcher 3.



I love how verbose your argument is.

What I meant saying Kingmaker only has the surface features of an RPG is that there is no personal interaction between the world of the rpg and your hero. The game doesn't react to your character; it does react to your decision in a superfluous level (you choose B instead of A, then you will have B ending instead of A). You are not part of the narrative, you just scroll through it. But this is not an objective opinion, this is just the feeling I had while playing the game. It was lukewarm, I was not engaged by it. And I agree, the game tries to be an RPG, but for me, it just fails.

It might have a bigger effect on you, then it is good for you.

Maybe I misunderstood your argument, but i´m pretty sure in PF there are choices that only appear if you have some particular alignment or race, worship a particular diety, etc...not only dialogue choices, some of them quest-solving choices. Your choices and alignment will also determine what allies and companions you will have along the way. And in the end they could change how the world would change at the end of the campaign.

So I would classify this as a "personal interaction" that causes a change in the world. I understand if it´s not enough for you, but you have to admit at least they earnestly try, something lacking in most rpgs I know.


I would define a RPG not only a game that wants to tell you a story about your character, but also a game that allows you to experience different characters and you can feel the differences in your gameplay if you choose a burly evil warrior or a sultry noobish spellcaster.

Maybe I wasn't clear about my point. I try to explain it better.

Here Wormerine says it the best, I think he understood the point I was trying to make:



Yes, Kingmaker presents you with dialogue options according to your customization choices (race/sex/religion/alignment) but it will never question your choices, these choices will never have an internal effect on the narrative (they will have an external effect, which direction the narrative will take, but your motivation will remain unexplored, if any).

Counter Example: In Planescape: Torment, higher mental scores will trigger secret dialogue options. But this is not the thing that makes Torment a great RPG (though it is cool design idea and I wish other rpg titles would use it more often), the thing that made imo Torment great it is the feels explored behind your choices (made both by you and your past lives).

Because you can say that in Kingmaker, you will have different dialogue options reacting to your character optimization choices and you could say these choices have consequences (it will determine the direction of the story), and this is what RPGs are about.

But you will never know how your hero feels about it, the game does not care about the motivation behind the choice.

And I know, this kind of narrative is very hard to write, and this is where I think premade protagonists have an edge (even though I prefer custom made ones), because writers will have to deal with a lesser number of variables and can write a more solid story for the hero with choices more embedded in the narrative and the actual motivations behind those choices explained.

So this is the reason why, at the end of the day, I am curious what BG3 will make of its origin stories.

I hope I have successfully clarified my point.

That´s understandable. It´s more feasible to create deep stories if you have a prefixed character to build upon that giving options for multiple choices.

But if I´m going to be an spectator or a passenger in the journey of a character some guy imposed to me, I prefer a book or a movie, not a RPG. If possible, If I´m playing a D&D adventure I want to play my character, not someone else´s, no matter how deep or well written the character is.

I think origin characters will always have a better story and connection to the world because it's handcrafted. However, I think it would be cool to have a character quest based on your class or background of your custom character, so you could feel more of a part of the world. It would be hard to implement without it being really vague, why does my trickery cleric get the same quest as my tempest cleric? I guess they could do subclass, but that becomes a crazy amount of content to make.

This's exactly what the wee DND player inside of me is saying.

As I stated, I have my misgivings about the origin system (something I was not happy about when they announced it), because I want to create my own character, just like in tabletop. On the other hand, I console myself with the stuff I typed out in the previous posts, that this origin pcs thing potentially could be a great opportunity for the writers to shine.

It all depends on the array of origin heroes we will get. Lets hope they will be a good bunch (I am really intrigued by the duo origin stories, those two who have a close link to each other, like potential siblings or a married couple maybe, that could be so interesting narratively, and something truly unique). Or you can build your own custom hero and that will be cool, too.

We will see.

I hope they find a balance between the two, if possible.

Let´s cross fingers.

i dont think creating a particulary deep story is the point of a roleplaying game.
The idea is to play a role in a fantasy world.

I think kingmaker does a pretty decent job for that, moreso than most other RPGs.

the witcher only lets you play one role, Geralt. Its not an RPG, its a story driven action game with RPG elements

I understand...

For me, good story-telling is a must for a good RPG. I can't play a role in a fantasy world that ignores me.

As I said, if Kingmaker did scratch that itch for you, that is great. It didn't for me.

Yes, Pathfinder has a story and has reactivity. It just doesn't give a crap about a character I want to play.

As far as pre-determined vs. custom character there is a good balance that needs to be struck, and this will change from game to game. In RPG naturally you want player to have freedom to create character they want but realistically developers have to put some limit on you.

Kingmaker has a good set up - you create a custom character but you are restricted to being a ruled of the kingdom. Where P:K looses me, is that in my 84h with the game (starting 3rd chapter - well actually doing the DLC now) choices weren't interesting. I was never asked to define values of my character, and those values were never challenged. It might be limitation of the alignment system - I decided to be neutral lawful and I get neutral lawful things to pick. I was never challenged if my decisions might not be correct, nor the game made me wonder if I am making a right choice. It's just pick your flavour. It is possible that down the line certain choices will have repercussions and if in unlikely case I would do a 2nd run, I might think harder about what I am about to do, but even so I don't think that's great - not being encourage to think in the moment of making the decision move dlalogue from being engaging to filler inbetween combat.

And while Witcher3 might put you in Geralts shoes and greatly limited your roleplaying abilities, decisions it put in front of you were far more agonizing, and therefore more engaging. Pathfinder so far: "Are you a good boy, a bad boy, or an indifferent boy?" Oh also: will anyone ever notice I am a tiefling? I know its part of the DLCs, so they couldn't reimplement reactivity (they are not Obsidian afterall!), but I was disappointed when Tiefling from the same DLC failed to notice multiple times I am a tiefling too.

The fact that you do not find the choices in PF:K interesting does not mean that the game does not offer choices, only that you prefer the choices that the Witcher games gave you instead. And as @Spacehamster and I said before, of course a game with a premade character is going to have a more deep, focused story. You have to deal with much less options.

It´s just a matter of tastes.

I never said that the game doesn’t offer choices nor consequence.

"I think it would be cool to have a character quest <line> based on your class or background of your custom character, so you could feel more of a part of the world."

^^^^^ This.