Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Please Rethink PC Origin Characters

What's funny is that on DOS2 I don't even know ppl who enjoyed playing as an origin character except for Fane. Because HE was created to be deeply connected to the main story unlike anyone else. And he was pointless as a companion. I feel that in this we'll have the exact same thing. The only companion so far that seems connected to the main story is Shadowheart with her mission, the artifact and all, so, in the end, she would be the only one making sense as origin character, which is already not a great thing.

If instead, they focused on the character that players can create as pl said above, giving them more personality, etc. And removing the racial comments, and instead, giving them personality choices that would affect their dialogues as they become more evil or good, etc. But I guess they want too much to bring their DOS vision instead.

There was a bit of stat reactivity in BG2, don't think there was a whole lot in BG1, but you're right that the story didn't go out of its way to change based on exactly what race and class and stats you picked. That's not really the point, though. The point is, there was one protagonist and only one protagonist and that one protagonist was the undisputed fulcrum of the storyline.

It was not a story about "some people", it was a story about one person and that person's fate as the person reacted to the world, grow, and happened to various people and places. The person would run into other adventurers, maybe spend time with some of them, maybe perform epic deeds alongside them, and maybe their paths would separate permanently or temporarily, and maybe they would stay together. But it was always about that one person. Charname.

Narratively, it feels different from writing a story where there's no chosen one and literally any from a bunch of dozens or hundreds of people with special tadpoles could take turns to be the main driver of what happens. It doesn't feel as focused. This is probably fine in an MP context, but if I'm playing a single player role-playing game then I expect to play an adventure about my character. Particularly in a D&D context, which is all about making "your character" rather than "min-maxing a toon".

Origin companions could potentially be a funny addition, if not overdone, but it is extremely hard for me to feel that they are "my character". They are rolled and designed by Larian, after all. Their personality is designed by Larian. Their backstory is written by Larian. Their hopes and dreams and aspirations and interests are all decided by Larian. How could they possibly be "my character", then?

And pregens with massive preferential treatment is exactly what DOS2 origin characters were, and what it feels a bit like BG3 origin characters will become. Further, it feels like any cool banter and interaction with companions might be limited exclusively to the origin characters (who for obvious reasons will have to start right with you in Act 1), and anything beyond that (if even possible) will be "mercenaries" with no depth at all. So not only does this detract from the story focus (it's not about "me", it's about whomever tadpoler is closest at the moment), but it also takes away from the companion options.

How about running into some gnome just looking for turnips and maybe looking for some nice faces to front him with regards to the representatives of "the law", but with no tadpole trouble whatsoever? Nah, can't do it. How about some beautiful elf lady cleric/mage who never learned any damn thing about actually being a badass cleric/mage? Nah, can't do it. How about running into one of the most ridiculous cases of racism, a supremely paladin'esque hafling lady fighter that was rejected from pally-school for not being a human? Can't do that either. Sorry Mazzy. And the list goes on and on and on.

The equivalent of where it feels like the origin companions are heading is that you could only play with other bhaalspawns as party members in BG1 and 2. How sad would that have been?

Those who're still saying "it's an option just don't try it if you don't like it" either didn't bother to read what the other posts say, or they did but somehow the messages just escaped them right after. It's not that this system exists is the problem, but that because of its existence, other things get compromised, in a bad kind of way. Especially when a bland and might-as-well-not-exist non-origin character makes you feel like you're getting punished for not playing Larian's precious origin characters.

The Origin system is my least favorite part of this game. It is a copout design decision that inhibits player agency. It is much easier to write permutations for, say, Wyll, a known entity with a set personality and goals, than for an unknown.

Our custom char got totally shafted for this mechanic. But who knows? Maybe Larian will eventually balance it better in this game than they did in DoS.

An actual origin system, with background choices and a prolouge (including unknown, for folks who don’t like them) for your custom char would have been so much more fun than this origin character system, imho.

After seeing DOS2 I wouldn't count on that. I still prefer my OC always. But even then, it's clear that DOS was made for Origin characters (specifically Fane), and the same thing will mostly happen here. I hope I'm wrong, but, I doubt it.

That is based on the assumption that without origin characters you'd get a more interesting main character. I don't find this argument convincing, considering how generic the protagonist in original BG1 and 2 games is, even though those games had no origins. That is because BG1&2 had very little character reactivity, which BG3 already has more of.

?
Apples and oranges.

Both BG1 and BG2 combined were made on a budget that these days wouldn't net you the cinematic intro for BG3 and its tutorial on the ship.
BG2 in 2000 had a budget of... what? Less than 5 millions or so?

And what was the budget for Icewind Dale? Which had character-based choices in dialogues. So why would character reactivity be such a big financial hurdle for BG1&2? You even have an example of a stat-based dialogue in BG2: the wish spell.

i wouldn't know, but probably a lot smaller, given that IWD was basically the "cheap Baldur's Gate spin-off focused entirely on dungeon dwelling and combat".

You do realise that there is another game with origin characters called DOS2, right? Made by the same people who are making BG3, as it happens. How did origin characters work out there? And gating dialogue behind particular stats or class options is hardly the make or break of whether the story is focused or a scattershot thing.

Obviously, stat-gating of dialogue options is not a budget thing but a design thing. It was done here and there in IWD, because what else could they do to make the game feel a bit more role-playish? It was done *a lot* in Planescape Torment, because it fit the theme and the game had a ton of stat increases. It wasn't done much in BG, and I presume it was because they didn't want to make dialogue trees explode but they also didn't want to limit characters too much, just because their wis stat was one point short or what have you.

But I did notice something curious recently. Right now some of the dialogue options here and there have tag "Baldurian". We can't decide to be from Baldur's Gate when making our character, but some of the Origin characters are. So already it seems like there's just going to be more interactivity and reactivity when we pick Origin pregens rather than playing our own characters.

And yet on that smaller budget IWD-devs managed to implement some unique dialogue choices. And if you look closer at BG2, the mechanics required to implement this are often already there. For example Bodhi will refuse a pure thief, because a thief siding with the vampiric guild would lose the stronghold. Multiclass thieves she is ok with. Which in my opinion doesn't make sense. Would it really be so much more expensive from a development standpoint to have Bodhi refuse a paladin or a good-aligned cleric instead? I doubt it was a matter of resources.

The others did bring up all the arguments against origin characters. I just want to emphasize again, how D&D is all about creating a character, not playing some pregen. I haven't played the DOS games, because I was apalled by the thought, that you have to play an origin character to get the full story treatment. That is mit rpg for me. I want to create my own character and this character has to be the center of my story, not some random pregen. And If it feels, that you are punished for being creative, then there is something wrong.

Why do you suggest that stat-gating dialogue choices has something to do with budget? Or ability? If the BG2 crew had wanted, they absolutely could have stat-gated a lot more. It wouldn't have been difficult, it would merely have required a lot more dialogue. Do note, however, that there are some charisma-based dialogue options that only work with high charisma. You can't talk your way into spellhold with low charisma and you can't convince the Drow girl that you have performance problems either.

And Boddhi refusing paladins and good-aligned clerics would open a different can of worms, forcing players to consider whether it made any lick of sense that they were allying with the shadow thieves? If they have good alignment then no, that makes no sense at all. There was, I believe, some work being done to have a third option also, but it just never got done and in the end they had to settle with super evil vampires or super evil thieves, neither of which is something good-aligned characters would care to ally with rather than murder to death.

And that protagonist was for the most part a [generic charname]. The narrative never made me care enough about the main character, the way I for example cared about the Nameless One. If this was a book or a movie, I'd not bother finishing it. Fortunately, as games the BG saga had more than the boring protagonist, like the exploration and fun combat.

This is so important. I liked DOS2, even without having "my own" character. I think there are many good RPGs out there where your character is at least somewhat predetermined. But those games are not DnD. DnD is about creating my own character for me. Its as if The Elder Scrolls 6 would have a Geralt like main character and not the player's choice.

And I too think that the approach trying to "have it both ways" is dangerous as it takes time and ressources, which are finite in a project like this. Its neither fish nor meat. I do hope for the best, as I really like to play my Custons and not get shafted on Story.

I don't think it would open a can of worms, I think it would have been a good design choice for the game. And if it would make the writers notice the "fakeness" of the shadow thieves vs. vampires choice, even better. Because that part of the plot feels like it was done only to create some narrative drama, by giving the player a choice between two evils. The way it is implemented, it only makes the [generic charname] look dumb, because faced with such a choice they don't even attempt to find a non-evil route (because the writers didn't bother creating any). This sort of bad design is also very prominent in ToB, where again your character has no agency and does as Melissan tells you.

Exactly. It's ok to have pregen characters in a Call of Cthulhu videogame, because chances are, they go mad and/or die anyway. But games like D&D, Vampire the Masquerade and such live from making and developing your own character.

These are my sentiments and my complaint exactly.

And the comparison to the player-created protagonist in the original BG games is an utterly ridiculous comparison. If those games were being made today, and with the kind of budget Larian is throwing at BG3, we would all expect and demand much more.

I think that in discussing Larian's origin character system, it would be illustrative to compare them to the companions in Dragon Age 2. They are among the most independant companions I've come across in an rpg in the sense that their stories do not, as a whole, revolve around Hawke or what Hawke is doing. They all have their own lives in Kirkwall, and they're getting on with those lives while occasionally bringing you into them. In theory, most of them would continue doing what they're doing without Hawke's existence. Merril would still get banished from her clan, Fenris would arrive in Kirkwall after fleeing his master, Isabella would still steal the Qunari tome, Varric would still be doing his business stuff, etc. But Hawke's involvement in their stories is absolutely pivotal. Their stories fundamentally change thanks to Hawke's presence. From Varric being able to fund the deep roads expedition to Isabella potentially changing her ways and returning the tome she stole. Even if you assume Aveline could get to Ferelden on her own, it's only thanks to Hawke that she becomes a guard captain or meets the man that becomes her husband. And then there's the main story itself. Arguably, there isn't truly a driving goal to DA2. It's about the life of a refugee trying to make their way in their new home, and along the way they get caught up in things that are bigger than them. Part of the point of the story is that Hawke really is just a nobody. Just a person in the right place at the right time. Yet the story is unquestionably about Hawke, with her companions being her supporting cast, emphasis on supporting. Therefore it can be personal and strike at Hawke in ways that are specific.

Compare all that to Origin characters. By their nature, their quests need to work in such a way that they can happen without the outside influence of a main character, because they could potentially be the main character. And the main story has to be one which is at its core, impersonal, external. Because otherwise it can't work. And that's the problem I think there is with Origin characters as Larian conceives them. The only way for them to work is by diluting the story and making it something removed from the character, unable to be as personal as a story where there's one character that the story will revolve around.

That "boring protagonist" was you, whoever you decided to be. Everything was centered around letting you have the choice of deciding who you were and every part of both games, by and large, were part of describing who you actually were.

Comparing with The Nameless One is a bit unfair, in part because he was many people over the years, and in part because story-telling and atmosphere is the one thing Planescape Torment did better than probably any other game before and after.

The writers were almost certainly well aware of the fakeness of shadow thieves vs vampires, but adding a different option would have required time to write and implement and test. And BG2 didn't have an endless budget, so messing around with this entire section just to add a third option would have been a lower priority than making other parts of the game work. There's a lot of stuff that was started but never got finished, and there was probably a lot more still that was only ever on the drawing board but never got any further than that.

You're right about ToB, though. I didn't like it all that much and I don't think all that many people did. It's too railroaded, too linear, with nowhere near enough player freedom.