Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback More Showing Less Telling

Some legitimate criticism I saw for bg3 from a friend of mine that I found interesting. The wording might be a bit jumbled, but it was a chat and I didnt want anything to be lost in translation so I simply pasted it here. The main criticism being more telling rather than showing. Quote under the cut:

"i think the whole quest of finding out kagha was a shadow druid was all very “convenient” and kinda boring. Using a child as a morality check of “ohhh look how eViL she is” was just eh... cliché when that’s the literal only thing they really got going for her. I wish there was more buildup and small interactions between the druids and the tieflings, to paint a better picture of the situation when you meet her threatening a child. The initial dialogue at the sanctuary area where the druids scare tieflings off wasn’t really enough...flavor, just context. There’s no idle dialogue between druids and tieflings... it needs some like, “seasoning” in the background showing the tensions. Like, there should be some druids who are against kagha who might sneek extra rations to the teiflings or something. Its all very seperated and feels very weird. Even when you stop the ritual the tieflings just stand there going “this place sucks”.

And then her trunk being labeled “kagha’s trunk” was just conveniently unowned and like just sorta placed carefully in a convenient large open area behind a bookcase with a note that says “hey gamers go to this ugly ass tree in the middle of god damn nowhere swampville” and there you get another convenient note after killing the most annoying ass mephits that says “btw shes a shadow druid!!! Oh nooo!!!”. Like idk if theres a more fun way to take her out that i missed somehow but i would’ve appreciated even just like the extra option of persuasion rolls to convince rath and nettie to unionize the druids to exile her or something. I really hate how everyone at the grove is just “oh sorry i cant do anything except like stand here and complain about halsin being gone to remind you about that quest in your journal :|”. Even zevlor is like... stuck in his cave the whole time, never even talking to a single druid.

I felt like more interest in the whole zevlor and aradin situation then with the druids, and even then it was like, a convenient quest marker. If you defuse the situation aradin tells you about the nightsong. If you punch zevlor aradin tells you about the nightsong. If you punch aradin, you meet him later and... he tells you about the nightsong. So much convenient telling, not really enough showing through context clues the players can piece together on their own."

Just wanted to see everyones thoughts on this, and if it held any ground to others. It lead to an interesting conversation about story telling devices, so I thought i'd share it with the forum.

I would like to have your friend reactions on some of "evil path bad" topics ...
Where people complaining about siding with Minthara option isnt clear enough and they wish to be more specificly told why, how, and when they can and should to that.

For my part, I do want to say that that's all pretty legitimate commentary and critique, and the writing and scene direction people would do well to take it on board.

I have few problems with this post, but I think I can summarize most of them to three.

For one, none of the aforementioned points is actually about breaking the "Show, don't tell" guideline; if anything they seem to be complaints about how "undercooked" some parts of the narrative are.

Second, the claim that the "child vs serpent" episode is the "proof that Kagha is evil" is a complete misfire on its own, because that's not at all what it is about.

Third, while there's no doubt that the current narrative has its fair share of "rough edges" that should be refined or marginally expanded before release, I'm starting to wonder if people realize that we aren't supposed to build home and spend the rest of our fictional life in Act 1, but that it's meant to be little more than a prologue -and an already fairly beefy one- and we'll soon move to the second act of the game, the area around Baldur's Gate, which is most likely where most of of the content will be placed.
And the whole "evil druids investigation" in particular seems to be intended as little more than a marginal footnote, not at a central plot point by any stretch.

I think what many - or at least some - people are afraid of is what you are talking about in your third point.

Now is EA, and people can test whatever content of the game is available so far. If they encounter a lot of things they don't like, of course the suspicion arises that the other acts will have similar problems.

Even more so when it comes down to mechanics that will stay the same, regardless of progress in the game, i.e. party movement and control, how scenes are triggered, how companions react to you, how in-game time progresses, how you fight your battles, how companions can partake in conversations, really how everything is presented.

They kinda gave Kagha some duality: she gets visibly upset if Arabella dies.

If you manage to sneak up to the table where two druids are arguing, you can find some interesting documents that shed some light on why druids act like that towards tieflings. I'll hide them under the spoiler in case anyone wants to read that stuff in the game.


Kagha didn't strike me as a strong leader or an evil person. More like a weak person that is easily influenced - it feels like she treated Arabella so harshly because of Olodan's brainwashing, not because she enjoyed making kids suffer. So, Kagha is not evil, but it doesn't really matter since she is a bad leader who can't make up her mind and be reliable.

This goes pretty well with: