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

But due to technical limitations you were only "what you wanted to be" in very very very restricted capacities. This can be done way better as of now. The tag system alone is bringing something to the table that just was not available back then. Combine it with the influence that skills and class features (+Class Tags) have and it feels much more like "what you want to be".

I guess the point here is: let the companions be just that and make the PC even more and more reactive. Because now at least we have the chance to really play that out much more.

Well, the old games didn't tell you much who you were, but you knew. You knew if you were the kind of practical type that would have Jan drink a few potions and then sell a few suits of full plate, then pickpocket those suits of full plate, then sell another couple of suits of full plate that you had recently, ahem, acquired. Or maybe you were too lawful and wouldn't even cheat a shady merchant that traded in stolen goods like that. You would know if you got the youths into trouble with swords and alcohol.

Things like class tags in the dialogue can used to put a bit more emphasis on precisely who and what you are, but I feel that all the skill check rolling BS is actually detracting a fair bit. Suppose you have shitty rolls, does that mean you ought to never learn anything about your companions? That they never open up? That doesn't feel right. Suppose you have rubbish skills for the check but extreme luck with the rolls (or you savescum), what does that mean, then?

But you were just very limited. As I said: you could tell yourself that this is what you did with the mechanics. But even the dialgue possibilities with just the tag system are streets ahead today. In the old games you mostly had Answers 1,2,3,4 and they did not change much if you were another race, class or had some proficiency.


Most dialogue with the companions is more choice based, than CHA-roll based. But yeah, if your uncharismatic barbarian has more muscle than charme, you will be more often in situations where you cannot sweettalk your way out. But on the other hand you also could be the suprisingly charismatic barbarian, who has other flaws.

The roll system is a fundamental part of DnD, so yeah: sometimes things will work out, and sometimes you are unlucky. This is just that extra bit of chaos that makes every encounter a little more individual. Sometimes something even works out if you are not a pro at it. Also remember: a lot of checks do require you to be at least proficient with the associated skill, just to let you roll. So its not the cliche of "i am a dumd barbarian, but I got a nat20 so I understand those arcana runes, even tho i am not proficient". Otherwise: its a singleplayer game mostly. People can just cheat or scum if they really want. I dont see the point of working around that.

The problem is that if I want to play a wizard, in the game's current state, why would I ever want to play as a custom wizard as opposed to Gale. Gale gets a story and unique dialogue with the possibility of more as the game progresses. Whereas my custom wizard will get... What? A few extra dialogue choices because he's a wizard that Gale would also get? That's it.

If Larian doesn't want to remove playable origin characters for whatever reason, that's okay. But they have to make custom characters worthwhile to play.


This guy gets it.

This is my biggest fear as well. No one character should have that much control of the main story unless they are meant to be the protagonist, where every player has to play as them or with them. Fane is optional to play as or recruit and yet if you don't have him in your party DOS2 becomes almost an entirely different game.

I wouldn’t discount a well implemented “illusion of choice”. Really, the end point is to make players believe that they choices matter, and I never had that issue with BG1&2. Not that many interesting things haven’t been done since BG1&2 (that includes it’s sibling, especially Planescape or recent Pillars of Eternity which for the most part adopted BG formula while adding reactivity to our race, class, background, ingame specified background, reputations etc.) it is still mostly flavour but serves “illusion of choice” well.

While BGs had very limited reactivity (in Bioware fashion, they were more focused on well constructed narrative and character arcs then flexible reactivity) the illusion of choice was well done. I played through BGs quite a few time, and while content wise playthroughs might not differ much, games allowed for enough player expression and provided compelling external motivations to feel convincing and engaging.

While BG3 reactivity is really impressive, it lacks the “illusion” part. Talking to people doesn’t feel like having conversations, a lot of reactivity seems to be centred about accounting for ways players can break the way, rather then provide engaging range of choice. I feel I have to do far more “imagining” in BG3 to give the PC any kind of personality or motivation, and that is something I never felt in BG1&2, in spite their limitations. I do think BG3 is spreading itself to thin, having to account for many different play styles and sandbox interactions and lacking “the core” of previous games. It’s cool that you can steal stuff from characters and they have lines recorded to account for that, but it also takes me out of the game - because character reaction simply doesn’t make believable sense.

PC’s content has to account for wild range of custom characters and Origins, and in the end lacks definition. Lots of impressive and cool stuff there, but it’s a lot of variations of a rather boring and inconsistent avatar (I wouldn’t call PC a character),

I always chuckle when i think of the "choice" between an origin character and a player made one.

"Would you like a super in-depth backstory origin character with awesome dialogue, looks and connections to the entire story written in??!! OR would you like a bland, boring no backstory character with generic cusomization with no connection at all to the story? :("

and then people wonder why the origin system is "popular". pizza or a kick in the balls is about right lol. "our metrics are showing that people do NOT being kicked in the balls therefore we'll only going to make pizza from now on" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This right here.

The problems with the Origin system are very subtle but systemic on a deep level. Most people don't realize what it does to the narrative at first. I didn't when I played DOS2 as my first serious cRPG, until I explored the genre and realized how the system just made the DOS2 companions and the overall narrative extremely dull in comparison.

DOS2 companions, when they interject in conversations at all, only do it during their personal arcs, or only have very generic quips about what they would decide to do in a particular situation. There's insane amounts of missed potential here. Probably the most interesting interaction they have between each other (or the ONLY inter-party interaction I can even remember, for that matter) is when Sebille and the Red Prince have a brief scuffle about Sebille assassinating the dreaming lizard towards the beginning of the game. But it's telling that even there, they don't confront each other about it at all on their own, they just complain to you to hear what you think, and then this never gets brought up again thereafter.

One would think that Ifan would have things to say to Sebille about her being the Prime Scion and the potential future of her people, given that Ifan was indirectly responsible for nearly genociding the Elves. Or that Beast would have advice on how to govern for the Red Prince, for when he and the Princess assume the throne of the Lizard empire in the future, lest he end up with rebels like Beast making life hard for him.

I guess what I'm saying here is that not only does the origin system come at the huge detriment of custom characters, Larian's specific handling of it ALSO comes at the detriment of the actual development of the companions and the party banter that can reinforce said development. Not only are the origins clashing with custom characters in importance, they also clash with each other in the end.

Alexander could have been a secret companion that could have joined the party at the end of Act 3, instead of being immediately killed off with the obvious betrayal by the other antagonists. He had the potential to be a very popular and memorable character and would have been THE big spoiler/plot twist of the game, because if there's one thing that mass media likes, it's former enemies turning into allies. He could have also come with such a hilariously overpowered kit that he could have attained the same level of notoriety as Thunder God Cid from Final Fantasy Tactics. But the Origin system combined with the decision to kill off all inactive party members at the end of act 1 made this impossible. Imagine what Alexander joining the party and going through actual character development, along with the lack of the awful design decision at the end of Act 1, would have done to improve the highly lambasted narrative of Act 4. Imagine him confronting Lucian at the very end of the game and realizing just how badly he had been played by even his very own father the entire time. When you really think about it, it's clear that everyone trashing how Act 4 was constructed is actually a direct consequence of the Origin system and the end of act 1 culling, because Larian at that point had massively written themselves into a corner.

People fear that BG3's narrative will fall apart later on with this historical context, purely due to entirely avoidable gameplay design decisions baked into the game's core.

Yeah +1 to everybody wanting our own custom made characters to feel more important than the premade origin characters. I really liked DOS2, I thought it was a fun game. But I did NOT like the custom character feeling more bland than origin characters. I tried playing as the origin characters a few times, but never got far because I wanted to play my OWN character with my OWN story in mind. I still liked the game, but I preferred playing a more bland version that I could make my own story up in my head, rather than feel railroaded into someone else's story.

I definitely DO NOT WANT ORIGIN CHARACTERS TO FEEL MORE IMPORTANT THAN MY OWN CUSTOM MADE CHARACTER in this game. I am fine with them making interesting fleshed out companions. But I want them to make my own custom character feel way more integral to the game than the custom character's in DOS2 felt. And I am very worried that Larian is going to screw this up, hardcore. If they do screw it up, at least I will know not to buy any more of their products.

The pineapple pizza vs kick in the balls analogy was a great one. Except I actually took the kick in the balls on DOS2 by playing as my own custom character instead of the origin character, because I hated the entire concept of playing somebody else's pregen character so much.

I don't play RPG's to play somebody else's pre-scripted character. I want to play my own thing.


Have a great day !

Exactly right. Larian making the companions react without them being in the party is good and means we won't be seeing them get killed just because we didn't pick them up. Now the problem comes in that we have no set "main character" to influence them. With everyone having their own stories and no interaction between the protagonist and other companions it makes it seems like the story is in a bubble, with no connection to anything that's going on.

Granted, the mass culling idea in BG3 wouldn't be so bad if it turns out there are actually going to be more companions joining you after Act 1, meaning that the potential culling only involves like 1/3rd to 1/4th of the cast instead of 1/2 in DOS2. Though Larian also risks what happened with PoE2, where much of the community considered the 'sidekick' characters that didn't have full companion status to have much more interesting backstories and depth compared to the full companions. Of which most of the actual companions the generally acted as extensions of each of the game's factions, rather than being their own thing with actual agency.

The Origin system existing in BG3 is probably already set in stone at this point, but I hope that Larian is experimenting with companions that join you after the assumed culling at the end of act 1 and thus not being origin characters either. They'll probably be taking notes on how writing companions not constrained by either gameplay mechanic works out in comparison to the origin companions. I'd hope they wouldn't be surprised when they end up becoming way better received than most of the origin companions.


This is something that has leapt out to me throughout the EA so far. The complete lack of any progress on the background tags would make me rather surprised if custom characters ever got anything else but a Baldurian tag in the end. I want to play a Waterdhavian Bard for instance, as my own personal tabletop character is currently involved in a campaign taking in the Undermountain underneath Waterdeep, and I would expect unique dialogue from Gale when he talks about the Yawning Portal in particular.

Backgrounds are a huge part of the identity of DnD, and it's obvious at this point that development on that front is being sacrificed for the origin system.

So much THIS.

If someone wants to play with the DM's companion and their background that's fine but don't make the same mistake than in DoS.
Not having a defined and closed background does not mean not being involved differently in the story.

In exemple make the dreams happen only for the main character whatever it's an origin or a custom character / a good or an evil character.
Don't give powers to the whole party but only to the main character. Make him special too.

It's not too late to grants our main character a story that is a bit different all along the game.

And please :
- add non origin companions that just have a quest and follow you because they have a good approval
- allow us to custom what can be customizable about origin characters and that would not be a problem for the game (impossible to custom models, classes, background, deity for shadowheart and so on... but their abilities, their skills proficiencies,,...)

I feel like Larian is afraid to make a special or "chosen one" main character because of the trope that many RPGs fall in. That being said, the MC doesn't need to be like the inquisitor from DA:I where they are fundamentally linked to the antagonist. But more like Hawke or The Warden where they are just people with a strong force of will. Hawke is literally just a dude, and yet every person he interacts with in DA2 is changed by his presence. I guess my biggest problem is that origin characters not only get a story unique to them, but also take from the main story as well.


I was also just thinking about this, it would be cool to get companions (even just one) that didn't have the mind flayer tadpole. It would be a great way to get an outside perspective of the characters and events from someone who doesn't have a shared experience like all of the current origin characters.

Going to add that the origin system also inherently forces the writing around each character to center around ridiculously wild backgrounds, in order to incentivize playing as them via the origin system. So not only does the system take away from the development of custom characters, but from a narrative standpoint, it feels like each companion exists in their own bubble and they are all constantly fighting for your attention rather than interacting with each other as a cohesive group.

Admittedly, I think a lot of what I am trying to say isn't very clear to most observers here just yet, as I am typing from the standpoint of someone who has participated in WotR beta. The entire cast of companions there are not afraid to call each other out or add their own quips during banter, let alone you. It also completely lacks the whole 'X approves/disapproves' mechanic, because they would rather tell you to your face if they disagree or directly back you up if they agree. Not to mention that the lack of this mechanic means you're not pressured into buttering them up, in which doing so would have a subtle undermining effect on your own and the companion's characterization for the sake of gaming the system. But that's another topic entirely.

There is a reason I genuinely believe that WotR is absolutely going to set a new standard in how party members are written, especially in a game with a custom main character. The standard that DA2 should have set in hindsight if the game wasn't so rushed out the gate that the entire gaming community at the time couldn't focus on anything but the bad aspects of it, turning it into one of the games with the biggest wasted potential ever. The same way that I genuinely believe that DOS2 is setting a new standard in the design of turn-based tactical RPGs in regards to environmental manipulation, that we are now beginning to see with games like the upcoming Triangle Strategy. And WotR is a big contributing factor in retroactively instilling within me a seething hatred of the origin system, as I don't believe its positives are worth anywhere near the wasted potential in other categories.

This is very true. DOS2 I had the feeling that all companions were unaware of the existence of each other (save very few and rare occasions), only you, the player character seemed to be there with them. When I played Lonewolf with Lohse it was like the other companions never actually mattered in the end.

Larian uses special and "chosen one" tropes. It's just they apply them to ALL companions/playable characters, not one custom (or multiple customs if you do multi) player characters.

Dragon Age: Origins was used before - in Larian version of it, all companions would be Wardens. You wouldn't get Morigan, you would get Warden with Mage background. And you all would be in charge. Sort of.

I'd be very curious to see if they kept track of what percentage of their players use a custom character for their main character and how many use origin characters first. I can't imagine using an origin character, but they seem to be popular.

They actually are very popular, almost all playthroughs/guides you can watch are with origin characters. I have friends who never played with a custom character tbh. In their word, they felt boring.

Their DOS2 is full-blown "chosen one", but instead of one chosen main character, you get an entire chosen party. Then you compete among your party to get one "really chosen one".

The point of playthrough/guide videos is to provide guides and tips, as well as to show off your playthrough, to your audience. Of course they'd pick an origin character, who has a real connection to the world with a real story and all the extra dialog and interaction with the world. I'd do the same. I can show off 4 such characters to my audience with my playthrough, instead of just 3 plus my custom character's cool name. I don't think we can base on this to conclude that all the people who made those playthrough/guide videos actually enjoy the origin characters.

Here's another thing. If I were to play this game with 3 other friends, and we know that the whole point of playing together is just to have some silly fun and mess things up, then I'd pick an origin character too, precisely because - again - the origin characters have a story with more interaction with the world, whereas my custom character is bland and doesn't really have anything that can be considered "fun" for a group playthrough. You could argue that "see, the origin characters have their purpose", but this would bring us back to something others have already pointed out: it's pizza v. a kick in the balls.

That, in itself isn't an indication, however, if there is market for a better custom experience. From what I have seen I am likely to play as custom in BG3, but in my 3 runs in D:OS2 I used origins each time. I knew ahead of time, that customs are no good, so why would I do that? All I was doing is taking content away while adding nothing of value.