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

I really want to play as Lae'zel, Shadowheart and Astarion. The horny wizard and the horny warlock not so much.

I am worried playing as an origin character will have the effect of missing lots of their lines in cinematics. And I like Shadowheart's voice so much I would rather have her as a companion for this very reason.

Personally I think I'm going to save origin character playthroughs for subsequent playthroughs because of this. I'll treat it as if I'm experiencing the same story [the companion's story] but directly through their eyes.

Presuming it's a popular feature since it made a return. I know my bro played multiple play through's solo/co-op in DOS2 as origin characters.

Playing as one of those characters reduces the amount of replays if you want to see companion stories.

I'm not a fan but removing playable options from a game seems dumb...

FWIW I played through DOS2 as an origin character precisely because of

and all things considered I did find it to be an interesting experience since you're given information, chat options and NPC interactions that you don't see if you bring the same character along as a regular companion.
That being said I'll definitely play as a custom character for my first full playthrough of BG3.

The issue I have is the execution, not concept itself. As the only human player I have influence over what we do, where we go, how we do things. As such my PC is the leader of the group when I play in singleplayer. Narrative and gameplay need to work alongside each other. Creating NPCs which would feel like independent selves with goals, agendas and equal to us influence would be quite a feat, and could be interesting. But it is not a story that singleplayer D:OS2 (and I assume BG3) tells.

I don’t know how well will BG3 fair in making companions feel like independent, thinking individuals, but D:OS2 was a failure in that regard. None of the companions felt good to me (my full D:OS2 feedback). A way, in which we interact with NPC and human players is simply too different. You want to design an RPG were our PC is a part of a group, rather then a leader - that’s great, and interesting, but it needs to be designed differently. As it is, we have a complete control over our companions actions, and even decide what they get to say. Bioware approach solved this dissonance by putting the player in a role around which the game revolved. Whenever you were Bhaalspawn, Raven, Gray Warden, Spectre etc. - it made sense that companions would follow you. They might have their demands, and leave you, but otherwise, they were under your command.

D:OS2 didn’t do that - companions were created to be inhabited by other players with their own wants, and without coop buddies, companions just felt empty. And unlike other RPG, D:OS2 had nothing to explain in narratively. D:OS2 companions will neatly fall in line, because you are the only real player, even though narratively it makes little sense. Imagine ending of BG2:ToB where everyone is the child of Bhaal. Why are you the one to ascend? In BG2 other candidates (Imoen, Sarevok) have reasons not to contest you. In D:OS2 they don’t, because they are supposed to contest you - you are equals. But they won’t, because you are the only player, therefore the game revolves around you. (I know it’s possible for companions not to ally with you, but it’s unlikely they won’t and if they do, it sucks). D:OS2 companions have good moments, but those are traditional ones - helping them solve their own side adventure. Whenever companion’s wants cross player wants it’s just doesn’t work.

On a side note, I didn’t like playing as origin either - I am not blind to benefits of pre-defined characters, but I felt distanced by Lohse’s or Grey Wolf’s definition (those were the two I tried myself) - not defined enough to be engaging, yet knowing NPCs and things that I don’t.

So yeah, good system if you play with a buddy and your attention is directed at your friends, with PCs being little more then player avatars. For single player world building and storytelling - just a bad system, leading to weaker protagonist and companions.

On the one hand, I feel that all I have heard so far is only some general gist. Basically, you will have special scenes giving you a bit more insight into the character's backstory and personal quest. Though you should learn most of what there is to know about a character if you travel with them as a companion in your party, I would hope.
On the other hand, I'm in the camp of people who have custom characters in mind already, each with their backstory, personality, etc. I have played the old Infinity Engine games, and even some TT RPG back in the days. So whenever I can create my own characters, I do.
I doubt I'll ever play as an Origin character.

But many video game RPGs, from Final Fantasy to Zelda to The Witcher, have you play as pre-set character X or Y or Z. I can see many players going for that.

Larian seems to aim to cater to both audiences. In a sense, why not. So long as they don't overspend resources into a feature that half the players will use, when they could spend more time working on things all the players will use (the UI, the writing, etc).

To me, playing with a premade character is anathema to the entire purpose of playing an RPG with custom character creation.

Same, waiting to play my halfling bard for sure, but that's me.

As it is obviously something that worked in previous DOS titles, I see the reasoning to have them in this game. I like the idea that in another playthrough you get some more insight into the character, that now plays the protagonist role.

However this is a feature without benefit for me at all. I rarely do full playthroughs again and I also generally do not change my playstyle (ranged stealth) too much either, so there is little incentive to choose, say Lae'Zel. I also usually make a character sort of mirroring myself, so pre-build characters are especially problematic. For choosing one I get certain dialogue options and one deeper quest. That is definitely not enough for me to justify new playthroughs outside of my chosen character.
In order to make me interested they would do something like Tyranny, where every choice I make in the game has grave consequences and significantly alters my playthrough. And even there I only played through the game once. Also, the writing of most companions right now is very poor, as is the interaction within the group, barely existant. What good is a feature when it does not significantly alter the relationships either?

So I wonder how much is really down to players being able to experience a slightly altered playthrough and if not having to mess with the character generator is not the biggest incentive of pre-made characters. So you save 5 minutes in the C-gen and get more fluff, over meticulously creating your own character that adds nothing (so far) of story value. I can see how that is the key factor here.

Optimally you would want a fleshed out experience for both the options and a form of interaction within the group so that you do not get the feeling the additions of Origin characters is irrelevant and that you do not miss out anything but the personal POV, when playing a custom character. So far I do not see how they can deliver on even one of the approaches.

This ^^^.

One of the worst flaws in DOS2 was the "origin" system. To remove the "roleplay" from a character detached from any story elements i.e. custom character, the origin characters needed to be unversally appeling which they weren't. This is fine for the speedrunners and meta-builders but utterly trash for roleplaying. Some people like to add a bit of their own imagination and backstory to a RPG.

I dunno, to each their own I quess. It seems superfluous adding a bunch of origins for the sake of a small side quest or two. Better to fill the characters with personallity and reactions to the protagonists personal contribution rather than convoluted story elements that require multiple story permutations per chartacter/race/class/god....Seems like making alot of work for yourself especially if only a small number of people will even bother with origins.

It kind of worked in DOS2 I don't see it being as popular in BG.

I would play a custom character and I would like to see the option of choosing one "origin"/back story like in DA:O so I have quests and story arcs related to that. Having the game world react to the custom character story is interesting.

For me, Origin characters are fine as companions. But I won't play as them. If it goes like DOS, I tried two, get bored and stopped playing. DOS2 was obviously meant to play as an origin character since they have a lot more content than custom character, yet, it wasn't engaging to me.

As for the numbers, if with much less content than "origin characters" people still choose to play custom, then what people would have choose if custom characters would have had the same amount of quests, dialogs related to the background, etc? And what was the number break among the origins? Because if some origins were played by less than 10% of players, then maybe investing so heavily in having so many origins instead of just companions might not be as logical as investing in doing custom characters right. Or more companions.

In DOS2 people choose between a custom character who only have the main plot and an origin character that they could customize, that offered then main plot+ personal quest. Not even choices.

So maybe, they shoudl offer small stories to pick from at character creation and that are related to quest and world interaction. The custom character story that exist in my head doesn't provide interaction with the game world and I like the choices I made on character creation acknowledged. Is nice to have options as a wizard (I suspect they are there for Gale XD). IT would be even nicer to have scenes, dialogs and a personal quest for a custom character.

Yes, though “Origins” from DA:O were something completely different. While DA:O has typical Bioware “overriding identity” in the form of the watcher, the “origin” gave us context to where we came from, what’s our race background in this world. You will recognise NPCs later in the game because of interactions you had with them in the origin story.

Larian’s “origins” don’t do that. If you pick an origin you get no introduction as to were they come from. Your character will know things and recognise NPCs which you won’t. I find that off putting.

Origins vote in the negative - don't waste time with it.

Focus gameplay, custom character creation.

vote up for allowing to CUSTOMIZE your companions at creation.

Considering that the "Origin" system continues in BG3, you might suspect that players enjoyed using it in DoS2.
The argument that the custom characters were shallow doesn't make much sense in this case. Most people didn't even know it when they first played it, but the system would still have to be popular (most people don't even finish games, not to mention playing a few times.).
If it were otherwise, Larian would not waste resources to introduce a mechanic that not many people like.

Could use some statistics from DoS2 how many people finished the game as a custom character. It may turn out that the "origin" system may have been more popular than we think.

This isn't DoS2.

Larian is falling back on a system they already developed. Thats what big game developers do.

DoS has different source material than BG. Just because it seems to have worked well for one source material does not mean it will work well for a different source material.

In addition, just the title itself will be attracting a player base from decades ago.

I just do not see origins working well with this source material unless it opened up entire new start areas and game play.

Neat little easter egg. But not the meat and potatoes.

spells. races. classes. map. npc interactions.

will the druids give different items to druid player characters? will tieflings let tiefling player characters join their group? etc etc.

and MORE companions. Halson the druid good spot to join. minthara. a few others.
Even getting that smart ogre to join your party.
There are better things the devs could focus on, that the player base would go absolutely enjoy more.

There should be more focus on that, and less on origins of very limited companions.

Why shouldn't this work for BG3?

The last thing the game needs is a bunch of poorly written companions.

Haven't played Divinity 2, tried a couple of times but something just turns me off, so don't know too much about the system even though it doesn't appeal particularly to me, but that aside it seems like a pretty huge undertaking to take up in a fully voice acted game. Somewhat wasteful too, all things considered. I mean, i think even from the most casual of casual players perspective the appeal of playing a premade character or a custom one must be around the same. And i very much doubt that kind of crowd would even ever play the story as different origins.

A lot of people like to play predefined characters.
Such characters usually have a better connection to the game world.
Games like witcher and me are popular for a reason.
In the case of custom characters, writing a story of their own for them is difficult because it would require them to have some kind of "frame".
It would be nice to have a prology like in DAO, but some people will complain that the game takes away their freedom.

Don't be daft. BG, and d and d in general, is about free play and bekng able to make choices, and being rewarded for knowing the lore and the choices to make.

Also, compare bg3 companions to companions from BG 1 and 2.
Can. Minc. Dynaheir. Jaheira. Even a hidden cleric you get by using stone to flesh on a random statue.. and a drow cleric lots of story there. And a winged elf that had her wings cut off. And a druid werewolf.. I can keep going.
The current bg3 campanions are dry. Cliche. All are tortured and whiney.

Halson would make a amazing companion. And Volo. Imagjne him a companion. And minthara.
But chars being forced to join because of tadpoles and so are always whining? How is that consider good character development?