Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Does anyone like the Origin system?

Genuinely curious since I see a lot of people complain about it. I don't hate the concept but I never see myself playing the origins and I kind of wish they would redirect resources to making the PC more interesting.

I would probably try out a couple if I was bored, but I prefer coming up with my own character and having the companions with their own stories.

ngl, I used the mod to check out a bit of Astarion's origin because I wanted more insight into the character. But I got bored quickly not playing my custom character and abandoned the playthrough.

I prefer origin companions instead of custom created by myself.

Lots of people. Post this question on Reddit and you'll see

Same here. I wanted to find out what in SH's box but quickly got bored. What annoyed me were the things Shadowheart was saying to herself when she hit a ground trigger. It was playing someone else's character and just wasn't invested in her -- wait, I didn't want her to say that . . . I became a viewer instead of a participant.

What's the appeal, if you don't mind my asking? I can see wanting to play a developed character like Geralt in the Witcher series, but even then the story focuses on the POV of one character whereas the Origin system has many.




Yeah, maybe it's just because it isn't fully implemented yet but I feel like it's stuck somewhere between removing player agency yet giving too much freedom over an "established" character. Idk, I feel like I'd rather get to know the origins as companions than as PCs.

nope, i see no point in it.
Its a dumb system as it is.

It would have been smarter to have gone with something that is actually an Origin, rather than a character. If you picked a Backstory and then created a character, thatd be neat.
But instead you just pick a character. Thats not what a roleplaying game is to me

Not a fan.
And if it was just a matter of flavor wouldn't even worry about it too much.
The real issue is that "origin stories" are spectacularly wasteful. Every additional companion costs a buckload more to be added to the game, forces the dev to give LESS companions in general and I could see a lot of these resources (money, above all) being better directed at aspects that would improve core mechanics and the experience for everyone (i.e. that infamous day/night cycle that Larian dismissed months ago as too much work to bother with).

I also confess to struggle a bit to see the appeal.
I love experiencing these companions stories from a... well, companion perspective, but not even once playing BG1 or BG2 I've ever caught myself thinking "Man, if only I was offered the chance to play the entire story as Minsc or Viconia". Nah, that never happened.

A lot of people chose to play as origin characters in DOS2. A lot. More than half the people I've ever seen playing DOS2 on Twitch have been playing as origin characters. Something that hardcore RPG fans don't want and wouldn't use isn't necessarily a bad feature. Because there are gonna be a ton of casual players who buy this game, who have never played D&D, who are not CRPG veterans, and they just want to jump in and play, not try to figure out how to make a character in a complex system they don't understand. People will play the origin characters. And they will enjoy them.

I probably won't, realistically. Most of the people on this forum probably won't. But we're a minority.

Yeah, can't really say I have any interest to discuss it from a popularity perspective.
I just don't think it makes the game particularly better.

Also, a lot of people played Origin stories because they were there to play. I did as well.
Then again, a lot of people if given the in-game prompt to try it would probably attempt to fuck a corpse. I'm not sure that translates in "that's exactly what everyone wanted".

Anything that makes the game more accessible makes the game better. More accessible means higher sales. Higher sales means more funding for follow-up DLC or sequels.

"More accessible" in this context sounds just like a buzzword.

The reason people picked Origins in OS2 was because they were less constrainign and because their stories, while definitly stories, left more to the imagination besides Fane realy.

Would having more robust background/role play options for a custom PC hold a similar appeal? Or is it that they have specific stories/identity to explore? the DOS2/BG3 Origins system is fairly unique, as far as I've seen. Normally we get an established character (Geralt, FF protags, etc.) that is the center of the story. Their identity is important since the story is specifically tailored to their POV. Then there's games like Mass Effect where you have a set character (Shepard) who has a similar narrative drive but the player shapes the identity. In games like the original BG and DA:O, the PC is less defined, relying more on player role play. The divide between these latter two seems more contentious, since they both attract people who wish to RP but to different degrees--some people find the voiced Shepard to be more relatable/immersive while the DA:O type protag allows for more player freedom. Origins seem to occupy a grey area, where, since there are several, the story can't be tailored to them in the way it could be for Shepard and Geralt, but they are voiced and, I imagine, would be less immersion breaking for some?

I don't inherently dislike the idea but I wonder if a similar appeal would be achieved if they expanded the options for PC/made a PC preset.

I view origin stories the same as say....legend of zelda, metal gear solid, assassin's creed, mario brothers, sonic the hedgehog, quake....that is not your character, it was handed to you. That story is not one you made up, it was crafted and put into the game with game mechanics supporting it.

If anything custom characters are flat because there is no story at all for that character beyond a generic game story, so you are missing out on a quarter of the game by not having one of your four characters have a built in back story with possible rewards or lore tied into the game.

I did not play a lot of D&D growing up, but I distinctly remember there used to be pre-built character cards and minor stories that can be made by the DM handed out to players. If anything, the pinnacle of roleplaying is playing someone you didn't make up and having to adapt to a role provided instead of just making someone similar to your own mind set, but with elf ears, or mimicking a cool story I read in a book somewhere, or even better, making a generically evil character who "mwa ha ha's" and does all the evil things with no plot because it is fun.

In theory, I like the idea. I think it's a step forward for games (and RPGs in particular) to allow choice between a fixed protagonist and a custom one. I personally like custom PCs more, but I enjoy games with different approaches and I think they all are valid (fixed Geralt, Grey Warden origins, custom Dragonborn).

In reality... I don't hate origins in BG3, but there are several problems with them.

1. As Tuco said: resources. Lots and lots of resources. That could be better used for something else.

2. I don't know if that's still up-to-date, but Larian stated that they want all companions to be origins. They also want each origin/companion to be extremely story-rich. I'm normally for quality over quantity, but that's too much "quality" that came at the steep cost of the choice of companions being... poor. Very poor. Half the BG2 companions, more or less.

3. Origins are not fixed enough imo. We already have custom protagonists if someone wants freedom of roleplaying. Larian decided to not limit our dialogue options when playing origins (afaik), which makes them... diluted? I think if you go with a fixed character, it's a good idea to trade some player freedom for more personality. (I'm not saying remove all options, of course, but limit those to what the character could realistically say/decide. There are still multiple origin paths to follow.)

4. You have to tailor the story to this dual system. The story has to work with all companions potentially being protagonists. That's limiting the narrative.

5. This is a problem that I think is more a matter of perception than an actual problem, but origins make custom characters look even more bland. I think most people would be fine with not much background for customs (a'la TES), but when you juxtapose those with origins it suddenly looks like there's nothing interesting about custom PCs. Custom characters have main plot, origins have main plot + origin plot. The former seem inferior narrative-wise.

Imo there's a couple of ways to deal with most of these problems, but that would require quite a lot of resources (so sans 1.).

If a game looks interesting where you play a specific person then I will buy it. This is rare for me. I have played the DA series and ME 1-3, with these I knew I was being handed a character, but one that could develop within a framework. This was better but still not as good as the DnD system where you fully make your character, partly why I was so excited about this game. I wouldn't mind if they added custom presets but only if they leave the current system as well.


Maybe it is because I know a decent amount about the FR but I find it easy to tie my created backstory into the game setting. Custom templates for people new to this or who can't come up with anything on their own would probably help but there needs to still be the current free option as well.

When I make up characters I usually find they are different to me and they develop as the plot makes them even though it is usually not "optimised". I could play a premade but would find it really boring to do so, especially if I can't get in their heads so to speak. I would need to completely understand the character, otherwise the rp from me would most likely not be what the DM intended.

If you use a custom PC I see no gameplay difference between Origin characters and companions of comparable games. The only difference is story-related, before we were settling family matters (Anomen, Keldorn), face an adversary/trauma from the past (Jaheira, Aloth), an extra dungeon quest (Korgan, Valygar) or some/all of the above (Eder).
Now we have companions with such extreme issues that could potenitally shake the foundations of the eart itself. You could argue that the theft of Boo is also such a world-defining trauma, however each of the Origin story is overwhelming and simply not relatable any more, since you do that 3-4 times over.

If you yourself chose to be an Origin character, I suppose you get that for yourself, but still have to face equal issues of your companions, that also share your tadpole, so the innate drive of the main quest. So the main quest is actually not an individual issue, but a group effort, which I find a really fresh idea tendencially, but it clashes with the equally important personal quests and a general lack of group interaction (and interaction in general). The bonus is you get a pre-defined character to play as, with a backstory you do not have to make up for yourself. That surely is an advantage with many people and a popular choice. I bet many people never changed the appearance of Commander Shepard for the exact reason that they wanted to play HIS story, not their own.

However, as we are playing BG3, it clashes with the predecessors, where the whole point was to experience the Bhaalspawn's story. In BG3, compared to the Origin characters the PC is just an accident; the equivalent of the possessed bakers and fishermen you see on the illithid ship. I find that annoying.

I have never played the other games, only started recently with BG1 but finding a lot of things irritating about it. I like the openness of this game much better in that there are many paths to take. I don't think we are just an accident, there will be something revealed later on that will show why we are "special". Perhaps there should be hints at this for the impatient people?