Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Companions in BG3 are an amusement parks

No-one will remember who your character was anyway. You'll be forgotten by the next game. So, lets have some fun with your craxy char and their mates before "canon" robs us.

I find myself strongly agreeing (though admittedly I did take Minsc in my party fairly regularly).

I was going to suggest that it seems to me that it was the personalities of companions in other similar games of this genre that were the most memorable thing, not their backstories, but I am not sure if that is just my memory failing me.

There's something in the style of Larian's writing which can come across very similar in manner to a Marvel or the recent Star Wars films but I can't think of the words to describe it.

Ok, so wall of text incoming, but bare with me. I agree with the complaint of the OP, themepark characters do detract from the game, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, even accepting the idea that a Nautaloid went past a number of cities and randomly abducted people, how likely is it that it grabbed a Priest of Shar, Mystra's Castoff with a magical timebomb, a Vampire Spawn, a Gith and someone with a pact with a demon. Obviously there were others and it wasn't just this group, but it seems unlikely from a narrative perspective to end up with this bunch of people to begin with. The priest of Shar and the Gith you can explain off, at a stretch, but beyond that you are stretching the limits of credibility and it detracts from the world's verisimilitude.

Secondly, by giving all of these companions, "epic backgrounds," it takes away from their personalities by making them more about insert_dramatic_plotline_here, than about them as an individual. They are merely a receptacle to explain a specific event, rather than a character. Gale is the weave guy, Astarion the vampire, The Gith is the Gith (I cannot even remember her name, that is how forgettable she is). You do not really think of them beyond their epic plotline, because it completely overshadows who they are.

Thirdly, the writers have failed heavily at the basic writing concept of, "show, don't tell," when it comes to characterizing the companions. Shadowheart is a very good example of this. Shadowheart is supposed to be a secretive priestess of Shar and yet how she behaves is completely at odds with her supposed backstory. If someone is supposed to be good at being secretive, they should be good at being secretive, they shouldn't be overtly "oh so mysterious and I refuse to tell you anything." The best way to keep a secret is to keep quiet about it, not draw attention to it (she shouldn't volunteer information about Shar unasked, only if a question is directed at her) and in the event that a question is directed at her, she should not outright lie about anything, just tell enough truth to keep people from being suspicious, whilst not enough for people to work things out. By trying to tell the audience that Shadowheart is secretive all the time, they have failed to make her secretive at all, thus undermining her character concept.

Fourthly, companions do not need to drown us in purple prose explaining who they are and what they are interested in. You can achieve a much better result, by providing less information, over a longer period of time, where it is appropriate. Have a companion interject a line or 2 when something upsets them or when they feel the need to give an opinion, don't give us 3 pages of text telling us their life story. An example I can give, from a book, which is very effective at creating memorable characters with a sparse use of text, would be the character Mercy from the books, The Black Company. When Mercy is first introduced, the only description of him the narrator gives is, "Mercy never grew up from being the kid who pulls the limbs off insects." It is a brief introduction and tells us enough to understand what type of character Mercy is. Then, throughout the book, our impression of the character is built upon by how he behaves. BG 3 does not do this and instead buries us in expository text for every companion we happen to collect.

As a result of these problems, as well as some others, I really do not like any of the companions in BG 3 at all and actively prefer to play the game solo.

With all of this being said, I do feel like this is a long time problem with RPGs and not just BG 3. I feel like the writers for games don't think they can hook people on their story if it is not a story with a chosen one saving the world on an epic adventure, complete with an entire squad of superheroes behind them in the party. There is one problem which I do not think the companions suffer from however, which a lot of companions in many games definitely do. The problem being, why are these people sticking together in the first place. Given that they all share a similar unfortunate turn of fate, it is in their best interest to stick together until their problem is resolved. Considering how long sticking together may take, they may have a genuine reason to stick together beyond this as well.


I don't mind comic relief characters, if they are done well. I do not feel like minsc is an example of comic relief done well and as a result he grates on me. I dislike him because of the character execution, not because of any fetishism the community has added on since. A good example of comic relief characters would be Goblin and One-Eye from the above mentioned Black Company novels, who are much better than Minsc and I can actually enjoy them as characters. The humor they interject to the story helps to break up the tension and occasionally also advances the plot. It is also not completely overpowering to the point where you almost cannot distinguish between them and their antics, where as Minsc is almost entirely just the comic relief that he brings along.

I would argue the best executed character in BG 1 was actually Imoen. She was supposed to fill the role of Charnames close friend who is almost a sister and she does this well. There is a good reason for her to follow Charname out of Candlekeep, she has plenty of historic emotional investment to make her willing to follow you. She is also not a themepark character, who is fairly down to earth and has a fun personality. I think the 2nd game actually weakens her character a great deal, she never needed to be a bhaalspawn for the plot to carry through and adding that bit to the story only made it weaker overall.

Minsc was fairly balanced with help of Dynaheir, they really worked as a couple with all that social background they had (which I liked a lot). But after they got rid of her and left Minsc as a standalone character, well, Minsc has become nothing more than a comic relief.

Thanks for reminding me that Abdel Adrian is canon.


Some of these I can get-they have reasons for being there. Karlach hopped on when we went through Avernus, Lae'zel hardly needs an explanation as a Githyanki warrior, but yeah a lot of super special people. I really wish one of the Origins characters was like a blacksmith or milkmaid or one of the town guard or something more mundane.

And unfortunately WoTC seized on him as an easily marketable character and have kept him going into 5e long after his story should have been concluded. I'd love to have another Rashemi character in a D&D crpg, because their history and culture is pretty damn fascinating, but with minsc all of that kinda gets eclipsed by the wacky comic relief hijinks. (spoiler)

After i saw in this topic opinions like "bg 1 had interesting companions" and "simple, grounded companions in dragon age 1" (yeah, good old simple grounded Morrigan, phaha) i decided to leave you nerds to boil here in this old-timer nostalgic, with "when i was your age grass was greener"-ish aftertaste, fantasies-filled nerd-juice as long as u want.

I don't have a problem with companions being 'special'; from a secret bastard burdened with saving the kingdom to a demon on the run from the forever war in hell; I also like everyman companions, like a devout veteran who struggles with disillusionment after his war ends or an alien who struggles with his societies expectations of him as he tries to navigate a morally fraught galaxy.

Having 'special' companions becomes a problem for me when a character seems anachronistic to the setting. Anachronistic either in their attitudes or in their expectations, I like our companions, but most don't quite fit the setting around them, and they also seem to expect the world to be like the video game they're the main characters of. That said, I don't know a lot about the setting of Baldur's Gate, I've played all or most of the rpgs set in FR but those were many editions and reboots ago, so for others the they might fit right in.

I agree also with Sharp about this game having trouble showing and not telling when it comes to characterizing our companions. I guess I haven't played enough because I don't remember Shadowheart volunteering any information about herself before succeeding multiple wisdom rolls which is why I think Shadowheart has the most natural roll out of her character, compared to others like Gale, who has to give you...the talk...for us to learn his story. This point is what I'd assumed was the meaning behind "amusement ride"

Morrigan is a witch living in a swamp. That isn't exactly high brow. If you read a little closer, you will notice that I also pointed out that BG 1 and 2 aren't good examples of games with solid characters. Furthermore, if you bothered to read the long essay I wrote about my thoughts on the topic, I did not once bring up an example from another game and instead voiced my exact complaint about the execution of the characters, from a technical point of view when considering the quality of the writing. The quality of the companion writing is not very good, in the technical sense and no, I don't need to be Stephen King to critique writing and know the difference between good writing and bad, just like I don't need to be the world's best driver to judge when a car crashes into a tree that something went wrong.

There are definitely times when I was reading her dialogue and thinking that for a someone who is supposedly good at deception, she was very much in your face however, it might be less glaringly obvious than I am remembering. I think a part of it might be the fact that they stick dialogue options right there that are worded as if you should be suspicious of her. A way to get around resolving that is for the dialogue choices you have available to you, to be dependent on if you pass a check to begin with. So for example, when you pick up the book behind the Ogre Mage, you have to pass a perception check for some of the dialogue options to be visible. They could then have an easier to meet speech check as well as a fairly easy to meet perception check, to compensate for the fact that there is now an additional check in place.

If the MC turns out to be offspring of a Bhaalspawn, and the Illithid were only capturing "specials" it could go some way to explaining why your MC is taken. You as the MC don't know you are the offspring of a Bhaalspawn so even if you have all your memories you still don't know. They don't need to give you any abilities or powers just being that would be enough to make you special.

To make this a thing what you'd need is some indication on the crashed ship that the Illithid were collecting "specials". You ask yourself why am I special and what's so special about all these other folks I keep meeting? This would make the discovery of their differences acceptable.

This would also tie the game back to BG1 and 2.

Right now it does seem like all the companions are a freak show. You could be part of the freak show.

Great post! I hope Larian pay attention too.

I wouldn't put all the blame on the writers. That's what a Game Director is for, to keep it all together much like in film and television. A good game director understands drama and storytelling as well as the visual narrative, and a bad game director can demand bland save the world plots and "more and bigger" from the writers because they don't understand subtlety and the power of restraint, or how to write a compelling character players can relate to.

A game director could have told the writers to write an undercover persona for Shadowheart and the artists not to put "shadows for eyes" makeup or Sharran symbols on her everywhere, including marketing pics and loadscreens. I feel like I have been completely robbed of my discovery of her secrets in BG3. What a let down, really. They just thought "people will soon find out anyway" and didn't even try to make her convincing. I think it's a huge mistake. Maybe the origin character concept interferes with this too. Are the origin characters really worth it if they spoil the story? As a player who likes to create their own character in D&D I just find it frustrating.

I really liked Gale in the beginning when it seemed like his boasting was hiding some real tragedy or shortcomings. But as soon as he told his story how he actually WAS the greatest Wizard of all time flying through space and time with a goddess, I lost all interest in him. I was just rolling my eyes thinking "keep casting your level 1 Magic Missiles, bro".

Karlach could have been a footsoldier of Hell, a slave, a nobody. Then, when someone comes to drag her back to Hell she could have had her growth realized, her Spartacus moment. Making her an epic commander and "Zariel's pet" just makes her already outrageous story much less credible. And like with everyone else, all this is through her dialogue explaining things. In the very first dialogue with her no less. Sharp's point about "show, don't tell" is spot on. Reveal her background only after she has been traveling with the party for some time, by minions of hell appearing and attempting to drag her back to hell. Give the player a proper WTH moment and a chance to demand answers from Karlach. She needs to be a part of the group at that point so the choice to defend her and make enemies from Hell is a meaningful one. Bottom line: her sitting in a pool of her own blood after fighting some humans and rambling on about being an arch devil's pet commander of an infernal army in the Nine Hells carving a path through a sea of demons is just about the worst way of introducing this character.

With Gale, you can't even "show" because his story is so bonkers. You can't have the Goddess of Magic just drop by for tea one night at camp. Maybe a good rule of thumb is also that if you can't show, don't tell.

How is Minthara introduced as a cruel villain? She threatens to dissect the goblin that failed her, but doesn't actually do anything. All telling, not showing again. Why doesn't she give the goblin a horrible scar with Inflict Wounds? Actions, not just talking about them.

Haha

Yeah, very good points. Storytelling you’re describing is a very good one and I really wish it was a thing in BG3.

Ok so as a mediocre beginner writer, sometimes you do have to tell. Show don't tell is a good rule, but sometimes it is much more natural for a character to explain something or tell something to someone, especially when it's something that would be hard to show. Also you want show and tell to be balanced, sometimes people get caught up in giving no exposition or explanation and so tell nothing and you get a situation like Balan Wonderworld. However, I do think maybe adding a scene where Gale sucks the magic out of an item late at night could be helpful, setting the hook, so his telling feels more justified cause we are asking for him to explain.

I have written a fair bit myself, although I don't think much of my writing, which was why I didn't fall back on what I have written as an appeal to authority (aside from the fact that appeals to authority are a bad form of argumentation). Its also why I haven't quit my day job and only write as a creative outlet in my spare time :P Obviously sometimes you do need to tell, but not to the extent to which BG 3 does. The natural time to tell is when a companion interjects on a subject they feel strongly about and in the case of Shadowheart, she should have a strong alter ego lined up to cover for her Sharran story. You should have to piece together who she is from what she doesn't say, not learn who she is from everything that she does say. A lot of the information which is provided for companions currently could be conveyed to the player without overtly telling them.

I was trying to simultaneously indicate I think I know what I am talking about while also indicating I lack enough experience to be completely sure what I am saying will be right and that I could be wrong, mediocre and beginner meaning I am learning.
And shadowheart does lean too much on the tell side, there is some moments it more or less shows like her discomfort with selune, which doesn't automatically scream sharran. And for a sharran she is arguably too open with a religion that she Knows is illegal and fears that others will kick her out for. I think there should be a bit more uh buildup to her finally confiding in the player with genuine plausible lies like claiming to worship another God, like Mask who is a god of shadows and trickery. I don't think they should removing the telling when she finally fesses up, but I do think there needs to be more buildup with showing small things and in the case of Shadowheart, like you said, a strong Alter Ego.

Edit: After looking something up, turns out Mask kinda died and surrendered to Shar so that would be a bust idea, but the point still stands where I agree that there should be some showing, but I also think some telling should eventually happen when it is natural for it to happen.

Yeah, I can agree with that. How I think it should be gone about, is that Shadowheart will not outright confess unless you confront her with sufficient evidence to question her motives and do it in a way which does not make her feel like she is under attack. Say during each encounter where she interjects, the player potentially has the opportunity to become suspicious of something, given they make the right dialogue checks. Then after enough checks have been made, they are able to confront her and bring up all of the irregularities they have noticed and ask her to explain them. It is obviously not an easy scene to write, but it would (in my opinion) make for a much more natural way of uncovering who she is. The uncover should also either come after chapter 1, or very late into chapter 1 and if the player never does uncover it, there should be some consequences much later in the game.

That could work really well, rewards players for actually interacting with their companions and gives it enough time that it actually feels like it makes sense that she could trust you or come completely clean. Cause right now it is essentially pet a dog a few times and she will spill her guts. I think somewhere around the Tiefling/Goblin Party, or after it is the best time to get that first reveal or confrontation out of the way because it seems like Shadowheart's whole part to play in BG3 is having secrets and mysteries be revealed one by one, as there is a list past her worship on things that players don't have the answers for (but can easily speculate on).
Also edit: I just realized the Mask thing might not be such a bad suggestion because he is dead, and an adherent of him has gained his divinity and position. Meaning it could be plausible for someone to worship a dead god and still get powers from Drasek Riven, but it would instantly set off red flags for anyone who knows Faerun God Lore and/or anyone who passes a religion check to realize its a dead god. Would create a piece of evidence against her while not being the worst lie, especially since in other editions people were able to get divine power from Io who was dead at the time.

I am honestly enjoying playing the 'normal' person of the bunch... and, as others have already said, these aren't normal companions but playable characters that have been designed with personal quests and so that you can experience something new from their perspective when playing as them as your origin characters.
Also, playing with a group of 'superheroes/supervillains' is very common in tabletop rpgs in general, when those that sit around the table and the GM agree to entwine their crazy elaborare backstories into the narrative which is an approach that I enjoy.
By looking at the companions, I can almost imagine the type of player that would create them and I personally find that quite charming.

One thing that i don't understand is why all those 'amazing' people are following around an every day dude/dudette, and are allowing them to choose their fate. Kind of like how in DA:I the Inquisitor was allowed to be the leader from the get-go, despite more competent people being there to take the job, but somewhat worse since people like Lae'zel and Astarion would 100% kill and/or leave an idiot wasting their time. One of the reasons why i'll probably never play a younger/inexperienced character in BG3, and in fact made up a pretty crazy backstory for my main.

I agree. It reminds me of the characters my friends and I make and the sessions we have together.

This and variations of it are a conversation I've seen more than once on the forum. It especially irks be in situations, like meeting the dragon knights with Lae'zel, where a companion should clearly be the face of that interaction, but for no real reason, still follows your nobody's cues for the conversation.


I think part of why all of this character exposition and group dynamics occurs so quickly early on is because it will ultimately be less important to the story. All our origin character's subplots will be dealt with early and their origins will be less significant pretty quickly. but that's just my guess.