Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback This doesn't feel like a Baldur's Gate game (or D&D)

For me, the need to long rest is a big one. If the encounters were done right, you shouldn't feel like you need to long rest so much. The idea is to be able to fight hosts of monsters in between each long rest. So, if I am level 1 with a party of 4 and fight 32 Manes, I should at that point feel like I need to long rest. Instead, I fight 3 Imps and need to long rest because they are way too powerful for level 1.

Likewise, I fight 2 phase spiders and 2 ettercaps and need a long rest. It's the only encounter in the Whispering Depths before you fight the boss. So rather than fight a host of baby monsters as I work my way towards the boss, I am only fighting like a single encounter beforehand instead because I'm fighting super tough monsters. Thus, we have fight, long rest, fight, long rest, fight, long rest and super nerfed monsters so you can actually still beat them using the fight, long rest, rinse, repeat method.

Take the hag's lair. Big fight with redcaps that nearly kills you. Long rest. Enter her lair. Fight the masks. DAng! They nearly killed me. I guess I'll have to leave and long rest and then return to face the hag. Otherwise, I can't beat her because the 2... 2 only, mind you... previous encounters were too grand so I couldn't just continue on to face the boss.

I guess my point was their commercial success speaks for itself. I think with DOS II and BG3 they are providing players with a great experience, hence the fabulous sales. I think they know what their audience wants and are delivering. Fine tuning comes from feedback. However I think Larian will always provide the opportunity for players to get in over their heads. They're simply not going to design encounters the way you suggest, it goes against everything they say they want to do.


BTW let me be clear GM4Him I am not saying I think your way is wrong. I read most of your posts, they're full of lots of interesting ideas and its obvious you know 5e in and out. You seem like the kind of person who would take a lot of care and pride in providing your players with a great experience whether its TT DND or the digital one with apps that you described elsewhere.

I 'm just pointing out that you have a seem to have a very different vision for what BG3 should be than Larian does, I'm just commenting on why I think they are doing things the way they are based on what Swen has said in many different interviews about DOS II and BG3.

I would not like to fight trash mobs, and certainly not in a turn-based game. As for me, such fights can lie where they are, that is in the garbage.
Such fights are simply boring, much better are the more difficult fights with stronger enemies.
The game should not waste the player's time by throwing a lot of pointless fights at him, where you might as well turn on automatic combat (the newest Pathfinder is more than 80% uninteresting fighting with trash).

Part of the issue I think stems from framing the EA as Act 1. It makes it so much more difficult to revisit or change anything once you've primed the player to think that this is the start of the story more or less fully realized.

I often wonder if they had described it differently initially, if the reaction to it might be a bit different?

If they had said something like 'In EA we're allowing players to preview Act 2, but the funhouse version of Act 2. Everything here is a placeholder and subject to change. The encounters aren't necessarily levelled and the companions you have in EA aren't necessarily the companions you'll meet in the full game. It's a bit of a mad science experiment, and building as we go, but we wanted to pull back the curtain a bit to give you a peek. Don't expect that what you see is what you'll get in the end. That said, your feedback is highly appreciated!'

Then people would probably approach it in a completely different way, with a much more forgiving attitude. Instead of seeing dashed hopes or disappointments at every turn they'd be more inclined to evaluate it as existing in a state of flux, and then the developers would have a lot more freedom to alter things without rocking the collective boat in each new iteration.

I wish they had done this in Patch 2 and then again in patch 3. Just shaking the box so the pieces would mix up again and people would adapt to the idea that it's a rough draft or a rough outline, rather than a final draft. Instead by calling it "Act 1" they gave the impression that this is the deal, and any changes are likely to just be peripheral. It sets up a situation rife for disappointment, or when any suggestion of change at this point would somehow betray the ultimate vision or intention. We're basically seeing the dailies with none of the sound or music or editing finished yet, and extrapolating from that what the final film will look like, with all the attendant attachments or disattachments that a preview of that sort entails.

Some people may feel its moving inexorably in the right direction, other's thinking no no no this is all wrong. Whereas all that could have been avoided if they just presented it in a different sort of light at the outset. I think there is still time for them to adopt that sort of angle, but then again players who are very attached to the current iteration may find that unsatisfying at this point. A bit like a knife in the back for the most ardent BG3 fans who have totally bought in and love it as is. Not sure what they can do with it really.

I'm not talking just throwing trash monsters at players for the sake of XP'ing up. See? That's what so many don't understand about true D&D. There are no such things as trash monsters in D&D. There are so many monsters and so many varieties that you don't NEED to make every fight a big awesome boss fight.

If done right, the game should feel like a steady increase of bigger and better monsters as you go. Each monster is unique and provides a different flavor of combat.

Take the opening fights on the nautiloid. You are Level 1. Right now, what do you fight in BG3? Imps. Imps. Imps. Oh, and maybe some hellshogs. All of these should be way more than you can handle.

My suggestion is:

Encounter 1 = 4-8 Manes, AC 9 HP 9 +2 to hit. Much more appropriate for you to kill. Every 2 hits and one is dead. You should have a 75% chance, roughly, to hit each one. Look up Manes. They're small, pale, undead looking fiends who do 2d4 damage if they hit you. Not super tough, but for level 1 characters, they're still somewhat of a challenge in numbers of 4-8 depending on your party size.

Next encounter = maybe an imp and a few manes. The Imp is injured, so he isn't too hard to take down. Maybe he has 4 HP, which would require you to do 8 damage to kill it since he has resistance. A mage would really come in handy against the imp, or a cleric. Either way, you're still fighting a few Manes, but now you've got an imp mixed in for flavor.

Next encounter = fight a few thralls. They're not super tough, but they'll give you XP and provide flavor in combat. At level 1, anything's fairly difficult.

Next encounter = fight 4 thralls, but one has an intellect devourer inside. You kill the one with the intellect devourer, and it pops out and attacks you. This battle only occurs if you killed Us or you're straying from the helm objective. The intellect devourer is severely injured as well, so when it pops out, it only has like 4 HP. Thus, it only requires like 8 damage to kill it, and again wizards and clerics come in real handy here.

Next encounter on the helm = a dretch and 4 manes. Now you have SH and Lae'zel with you and maybe Us. A dretch is a brute with 11 AC and 18 HP and multi-attack with +2 to hit and a few special abilities. It is surely a challenge for level 1 characters, but it is more appropriate for them. With a CR rating of 1/2, two dretches would be a challenge for a party of 4 level 1's. So, 1 plus some manes isn't overwhelming. Still a hard battle, but it shouldn't wipe the players.

The point is, it's not trash mobs, it's appropriate monsters for the characters and their levels. THAT is the point I keep trying to make. Don't give me imps with CR 2 challenge rating that should be a challenge for a party of 4 level 2's, and you have to face 3 of them or 3 intellect devourers who SHOULD wipe the floor with your party unless you had maybe a party of 6 level 2s instead of a party of 2 level 1s.

To be fair, also BG2 had some of these issues:

(1) The introductory Irenicus dungeon was a mess of areas with crystals and Djinns, areas with prisoners, areas with Nymphs and forest, areas with clouds and other Djinns. It didn't make sense, it seemed as if they wanted to cram cool stuff into a small map.
(2) In Amn, you could literally walk into a random tavern, manipulate a picture on a wall and directly step into a Lich's tomb. With no corridors, rooms or maze like secret passages in between.
(3) The Underdark had a single map where Drow, Illithids, Duergar and Kuo Toa were crammed together, living almost next to each other.

-> all these issues are relatively minor in comparison, but they are also a bit sloppy. If you compare this to the undercity map of BG1 were you had a whole area of a destroyed city which basically only housed the final fight, there is a completely different design philosophy behind it.

In what way?

Are you talking about things like Astarion mentioning Cazador before revealing that he's a vampire spawn? These are little bugs that need to be tweaked, not storytelling flaws.

Or are you referring to something else? Can you clarify?


This is not a great criticism. In a story, there should be a shift. It helps to relieve tension. It creates the sense of a big world, where there are good days and tragic days. Those things play off one another to elevate the experience.

If it were all one note beaten again and again, it would get overwhelming and monotonous and annoying. Instead, it strives for ups and downs in a balance that's meant to elicit an emotional reaction in the world.

And remember, for all the talk about decapitation... that's a choice. Your character chooses whether or not to do that, meaning you are the one bringing that mood to the game. Just like your character is the one who chooses whether or not to thunderwave Alfira off the cliff.

See what I mean? You are a part of the mood. You are a part of the shifting of that mood, because this is an interactive game, with options built in.



There's wonderful set up. There's wonderful explanation.

The game starts you off with an excellent scene. It shows a Mind Flayer putting a tadpole in someone's head while you watch from your point of view. Then it shows the tadpole going in your head. From there, the ship captures more people, engages in conflict with githyanki, hops about dimensions, ends up in the hells, and you are knocked free from your pod.

Now you make your way to the helm. You know you have a tadpole in your head and that you can transform into a Mind Flayer, which effectively means that you'll die as the Mind Flayer will be a new creature and not you. Very much like the birth of gnoll resulting from the death of a hyena.

The game even shows you what your facing with the "changed at the pull of a lever!" scene.

This thing that starts as an immediate worry about your immediate survival begins to turn into a mystery as you explore ways to heal yourself, specifically in the grove.

It gives you two options, roughly. One, help Halsin get free so he can help you. Or two, join Minthara so you can get close to the source and hopefully learn more.

And so on, the game continues from there. Revealing an underdark, revealing the history of Selune temple and Grymforge, hinting at some curse on the land above, all leading toward Moonrise Towers.

We understand what's happening in the game because there's clarity, because there's set up, and because there's explanation.

So you say there's a lack thereof. How so? I'm guessing you're saying there should be more explanation about Shar, and in that suggestion, it's like you're forgetting all the other amazing elements clearly on display, all the things that have clearly been put forward.

As for Shar and Shadowheart, I have my own thoughts about that, which is to say that I doubt we share the same concerns. But regardless, it's not a difficult fix, especially considering we're in early access.


Are you referring to Shadowheart revealing herself as a follower of Shar?

I agree. This could be stronger. And I don't think it's a difficult fix. Remove "Cleric of Shar" from her character sheet, for one. Have her lie about who she worships earlier, for two. And while I don't agree this is necessary, as some folks have suggested, have her use Disguise Self until the crucial moment comes. All of this would make the scene stronger.

But that said, seeing a scene that could be stronger doesn't mean you're looking at a story that's not decent. That's an enormous leap. From "this scene could be better" to "this whole story sucks and I want a decent story."


How exactly does the map design not support the story?

Because things are too close? Are you saying the narrative suffers because the player doesn't have to walk far enough to get to the village? Do you think that has anything to do with the writing of the story?


No, I mean it's a good story. It has interesting characters who are in an interesting situation. It has conflict. There's a goal and a sense of repercussions if the goal isn't met.

By computer game standards, it also works, especially considering how there are multiple ways to approach things. So many scenes have been discovered that are surprising, as in, "wow, I didn't think that could happen, and it's cool to learn that the game accommodates for that possibility."

Now, you might argue that the character's aren't interesting, and then you might try to twist your personal taste into an argument that further says that means the writing is bad. But I wouldn't agree with you.

Let's take Gale as an example. I don't like Gale as an NPC. His story seems ridiculous. The stuff of eye-rolls. But would he be fun to play as a character? Possibly. Then I wouldn't be listening to him, I'd be him, making decisions from his point of view.

Some might say his proclaimed relationship with a goddess is too much. But is it? I think back through the history of fantasy writing. Even going to someone like David Eddings, I see a setting where mortals and gods are very close.

Whether that aspect of the character appeals directly to me or not... it doesn't inherently make it bad writing.


Thank you. I am sorry that you are not. I hope you get a chance some day to see in it what I do, and thus find some more enjoyment for yourself.

What the OP wrote really resonated with me, I couldn't have put it better myself. I imagine nostalgia plays a part when looking back at those seminal prequel games but nevertheless they have stood the test of time (I had a blast replaying BG1 this summer-it's flawed but oh how it draws you into its world). The BG3 map feels devoid of life and totally craps on immersion with its theme park feel and endless 'corridors' of exploration...I don't recall a single open expanse one could traverse.

BG3 suffers for being something of a hybrid game; not quite D&D, not quite DOS. The original games were far more measured, immersive and there was a patience involved in levelling up but the rewards felt far more tangible for it. Perhaps Larian worried that gamers these days would have the patience for such a game? I see posts here talking about not wanting to fight trash mobs but the alternative is seemingly to throw every crazy encounter you can possibly imagine at the party? Where is the sense of scale, or achievement, when you level up regularly in no time and are facing every exotic monster possible, all in Act 1. I shudder to think what later Acts will be like in BG3.

Criticisms of the intro of BG2, while valid, also have to consider the party started at a much higher level. I concur it's a bit strange and a pain in the arse to get it out of the way but it has never bothered me in the same manner as BG3's explosive intro.

The thing that gets me perhaps the most is that I just don't care about any of the companions in BG3, I don't care what or who The Absolute is...it's a convoluted mess of a storyline full of plot holes. I had a vested interest in many of the companions in previous games; some felt relatable and others were detestable but for the most part they felt believable. I stopped playing BG3 a year ago because I just felt empty forcing myself to try and enjoy the game.

Everything is too special, fantastical and exceptional in BG3 and hence, nothing really is. There's no foreplay, it's all f**king. It's like Larian took a classic car and rather than refine it, they turned it into some brash muscle car.

Yup. Plus +100 to the post and this.
Larian is catering to the PG13, modern WE WANT EVERYTHING AND NOW!! <<RPG>> crowd. And to that, yes its a pretty great game.
The game feeling from the get go at LEVEL1 like a Michael Bay flick is the perfect analogy. In terms of pacing the freaking game starts like late 90s games ends lol. For sure It will sell very well and be popular.

And as in ALL LARIAN GAMES, after hitting level 4, NOTHING SPECIAL. Seen it all. Item overload. STUFF overload. No point to special monsters. Characters are all over the place glass cannons. And Im already bored to NINE HELLS.
Larian does not seem to understand the concept of slow steady progression, introducing WEAKNESSES TO CERTAIN CHARACTERS/CLASSES, atmospheric build up, time and urgency. EVERYTHING is just already THERE, waiting on the map.

I see a lot in this thread people essentially asking, "if there is something wrong with this game, why is it still fun/why are we still playing it?" etc.

That's because despite the problems, BG3 is still a fun game. The poor writing is subjective, the fact remains it is an entertaining fantasy RPG. Despite acusations that I see things through rose tinted glasses, I enjoy many newer rpgs like this. Pillars of Eternity 1&2, DOS 1&2, Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous are all great, fun games.

Despite that, It's like if I had a party and called a restaurant to order a pizza for my guests but they deliver a lasagna with pizza toppings instead. Then when I complain that they didn't deliver a pizza as requested, they point out that "ahh but your guests were hungry and are still eating the strange lasagna which happens to be delicious isn't it?" They advertised one thing, delivered another, and whether or not it is good is beyond the point.

BG3 is a fun game, in fact if the names and faces were changed they could call it "Divinity Original Sin 3" and I would enjoy it, just as I enjoyed DOS2. We can argue about the quality of the script but that aside, it simply fails to perform as a threequel to the Baldur's Gate series. As such, it is bipolar and trying to be something it is not. I agree with all the comments about how strange it is that Larian takes existing monsters, alters their CR and ignores more appropriate challenges for our party's level. This is a comedy of errors, it does not matter if I am entertained, an error was still made.

I agree - critisising something doesn't mean, that one can't enjoy parts of it. It's not black and white (it seldom is). But pointing out things, that don't make sense or are over the top, is valid to do.
I never played a Larian game before, wasn't interested in the DOS games, since you are basically forced to play an origin character to experience the whole story. So I'm solely here because Baldurs Gate, nothing else. I bought the EA last year and am not really sorry, I did. But I do hope, they will tone it all down a bit - right now, it's just overload.

Let me preface that I really like bg3 (best DnD crpg game in my opinion) and played act 1 a few times over, even did a drow solo run, back when you could abuse some game mechanics (stay hidden and always attack with advantage).


I must say I really like it as is, and the time when it got announced (2019) cRPG were still a niche. The tonality with characters developing story arch's of Bg3 reminds me also a bit of DA:O, which was a great game as well. And although I played (and liked) PoE 1 and 2 and Pathfinder and Solasta, it was BG3 in the end which fueled my DnD needs and made me read more lore books, listening to more YouTube lore videos and made me Replay BG1,2 and NWN 2 just recently.
No other cRPG would do that. And btw. while replaying BG2 I must say I found some dialogue pretty cringe sometimes, and story pacing felt off as well. NWN 2 was great but towards the end had me do too many errand like things and I felt much too powerful.

Edit: the combat feeling in BG3 is so perfect btw. Can really feel the impact, while in older cRPGs combat always felt hollow and a little weird.

When I started my first BG3 playthrough it felt perfect. Because I did mistakes and the game felt pretty tough it is tailored for starters that don't know everything, and that come from normal video games. Now doing my 6th or so playthrough, of course I feel mighty because I know every encounter, every magic item and every room.

But try to remember the first time you launched, when you did not minmax everything.

Now in my 6th playthrough I try again to mimic a first start, try to do mistakes, and it again feels nearly as good as the 1st time. Encounters are just right in my eyes!

And every DM makes homebrew rules. I get that some people want a slower Start, a more more grounded start, and I wouldn't turn that away either. So.
Maybe BG3 could offer a tutorial before the tutorial, where when we build our character, and chose our origin we get a mini 1-2 hour mini tutorial (living the life on a farm, or in a mage school), in which we can learn more about the world, recent events, or BG1/2 events? All that through talking to people, overhear chatter, reading lore books or getting hints in other forms. Then we get captured by the mindflayer ship, and the game starts. ( This mini story / background / lore tutorial could also be in form of separate dreams.. )


Edit2: I really really hope bg3 will be a huge financial success and more players are lured into the forgotten realms. I want add-ons, dlcs and everything and occasionally a bg4 in that engine, with that story telling please . In my eyes it's super awesome and fits BG lore perfectly.
For example the first time gale died . Really I was so flashed . This is what I love, or the swamp hag, cmon, it's brilliant.

And I don't mind a little Humor. It's not forced at all and is nothing like jarjar Bink's...

The funny part is that you see youreself as completely inocent in your example ... all their fault huh?

Actualy its like they Advertised something, you EXPECTED another, and then they delivered ...
Something that meets their advertising in their eyes, but not your expectations ...

No given promise was broken and you could theoreticaly know better what to expect if you were listen to their (and not just their) advertising more closely ... but you were like "yay pizza, lets get there" and then completely ignored what ingredients will be used. Funny enough, for last year there are terabites of content all over internet where people are complaining that salami was too dry, tomatoes too fade, or paste too thin (or thick, matter of prefferences) ... yet you refuse to listen to all those, since "yay pizza, me hungry" ... and now you are complaining that pizza you got dont meet your expectations ...
Question here: Is that really fair to blame the food for that? O_o

I think my issue is that the game starts off going to 100 real quick on the epic scale, and I don't see the game being able to convincingly bring the pacing down to something more normal/mild without it feeling awkward and forced. WotR in comparison probably starts off even higher on the epic scale, but its companion cast is still rather largely grounded (and effectively dulling a lot of the edge through their party interactions and constant interjections). Plus the overall framing and your party actually participating in almost every conversation makes it extremely clear that you're in a turbulent region of the world widely known to be affected by extraordinary circumstances - but it also doesn't mean everything has to be extraordinary.

But BG3's companions and the overall plot just pushes the epic scale as high as it can, and it's also a big contributing factor to the worries that custom MCs are going to get the shaft again. I mean, you've got a Githyanki that isn't normally seen in the setting, a mysterious cleric of an evil goddess with a crazy maguffin artifact, a wizard that people theorize is a reincarnation of something close to the freaking goddess of the weave and source of all magic, a vampire spawn, and a warlock beholden to a cambion. Like they're all really damaged in terms of backstory and personality, and it shows with how little actual party banter exists between them, or how their backstories don't lend themselves to any semblance of potential future character development that doesn't involve five layers of mystery being peeled away or murderhoboing something. Let alone themselves actually interacting with the setting that they're supposed to be from without something exploding. Kind of telling that none of them talk about their family or ever having any friends before any of this began - meanwhile all of WotR's companions do, even if they're only slightly lower on the epic scale in a direct comparison (and some are even higher, such as the succubus Arueshalae, but she gets utilized in a way that really adds to the characterization of the party as a whole, not to mention offering a unique perspective into the lore of the setting rather than trying to become so epic that their existence comes off as trying to retcon something).

Literally any of them could be a main character in their own separate games, and maybe that's the point with the existence of the eventual Origin system. But really, how the hell do you balance that kind of party from a narrative standpoint against everything else that's happening? That kind of competing focus not just drowns out whatever perceived role a custom MC should have, it also overpowers the actual setting itself.

I've come to realize that throughout my time playing BG3, not once did I really feel like I was really playing a game in the Forgotten Realms setting (and I wouldn't have known it was a Forgotten Realms game if the game didn't take every opportunity to tell us it was, rather than showing us in a sense), because a lot of the background details feel like they've been completely overpowered by the extraordinary events happening to your party and the surrounding areas. With the way things are, it almost feels as if we as players got dropped into something in media res, except it's the beginning of the story rather than something that was done on purpose.

After reading a bit more in this thread, I came to the conclusion that one of the issues in terms of narrative (thus, leaving aside all the worldbuilding, map, lore issues) which makes the first steps as a player less of an exploration that emphasizes player agency (meaning [non main plot] decisions and chosen path is contingent and non-linear) and introduces us to the setting, story, and our role in it as a player/character stems from the difference between how in BG1&2 we were effectively left completely free as to either ignore, run away, or pursue our - obviously unavoidable - destiny. No one forces you to actually join up with Jaheira in BG1, you can simply start exploring all the other areas and ignore the main quest/story line for a fairly big part of the game. Same thing is what made BG2 so grandiose, after the linear starting dungeon, you the player are put in a situation which both conveys incentives to follow the main plot (save your hot sis from Irenicus' BDSM nightmare) but also forced you to explore the world (you need to do other quests to get the gold to proceed in the main story/quest). This left a lot of choice in the players hand, you could immediately try to free Imoen, or you could totally ignore her (and your destiny as a Bhaal spawn), at least for a while, and simply set out to become one of the region's great adventurers.

The key point being that the narrative devices employed are much more open ended (e.g. foster father killed in ambush leaving you alone in wilderness with only vague instructions; freeing yourself from imprisonment and finding yourself in a strange city with your sister and close friend taken captive together with the guy who imprisoned and tortured you, with only vague hints as to which path to pursue to find out about your sister and/or who imprisoned you for what reason). The story does not predicate that the player will die because he doesn't want to follow Gorion's instructions or because he doesn't care about Imoen and Irenicus, instead it implies those choices mean you roleplay as someone of questionable morals who pursues his/her own interests instead of doing the obviously good thing (finding out who killed your "father" and saving your sister).

This is very different from BG3 where we are dropped in the world knowing only that we have a life-threatening condition that needs our immediate attention. The lack of narrative choice is so that not even with the current party cast made up solely of evil-neutral companions it makes sense for the player to say 'fuck them tadpoles, I don't care, i'm just gonna do some adventuring instead', as even evil characters do not want to risk losing who they are by turning into a mindflayer. (Except for Astarion that is, the day-roaming vampire thief whose mere existence depends on plot armor). At the same time, however, Larian doesn't want you to rush trough their expensive act 1 map, so quite early they make it evident that there is no urgency at all and the player can freely explore the map and do some quest-lines.

So on the one hand we have a narrative which in roleplaying terms introduces us to the world as an agency possessing character forced to make moral choices right from the start, either willfully or by mere choice of what to do next; while on the other hand, we have a narrative which strips us of all agency (no one, not even the most evil of characters, wants to ignore the tadpole, not even Astarion who merely contemplates the benefits of the tadpole but also by definition can not ignore it) and only manages to introduce player agency and choice by contradicting its own main premise.

I feel that the old story, although a bit cliché and a stereotypical fantasy coming of age trope, was a much better starting premise to give the RP illusion of choice, one can say fuck my sister, I will pursue personal power, but one doesn't say 'fuck that tadpole, I will simply save this guy from the burning inn in what could potentially be my last hours/days and while I feel this thing growing in my skull'. Being on the run, or having to find out something (which is also giving time pressure, IF the player decides to roleplay as someone who cares, but doesn't have to) is much better suited for cascading from side-quest to side quest and getting to know the setting and world, without breaking immersion and contradicting the game's main premises and plot lines, compared to the tadpole which acts a kind of Schrödingers late stage terminal brain tumor.

I think an easy solution would be to only introduce the tadpole at a later stage. This would mean:

- the player starts by noticing something weird, a stain, something out of place and suspects it to be related to the mindplayer abduction

- the quest for a healer to remove the tadpole becomes a quest to find out what this weird stain and change could be

- the player only finds out it is a tadpole at the completion of one of the 'healer' quest lines, meaning that instead of learning we have a 'special' tadpole, we simply find out that we have a tadpole only then. Finding out it is a 'special' tadpole should follow logically from this, either as part of the quests (e.g. the hag could detect the tadpole, hesitate and if player passes insight and charisma check, tell the player she believes the tadpole to be no immediate risk of transforming into mindflayer; or, the player could simply keep resting and using tadpole powers to find out the same thing trough camp/party interactions).

So instead of this giant contradiction as the starting premise of the game and the immersion breaking non-urgent urgency on which it hinges, the player should be left in the unknown about his condition and FIRST find out what is actually happening (e.g. what is this weird feeling, what are these sudden powers I obtained) and only then be told of the exact nature of his/her condition. This would still instill some narrative/moral urgency (no one would NOT want to know what happens to his/her body except the totally suicidal) but not the over the top "we are all going to die, transform in mindless slaves or evil psychic octopus aliens" type of urgency which is so over the top that it forces the main story to contradict itself right from the start.

Actually, your post gave me an interesting thought, Serra. Maybe the overall perception would be improved if we *didn't* start on the mindflayer ship already infected. We could have started somewhere else, doing smaller things and taking our first steps towards adventuring. Maybe you briefly meet or catch a glimpse of some of the other party members doing their own thing along the way, like running into Astarion if you were a Baldurian. Or maybe you were a Waterdhavian adventurer planning on tackling the Undermountain through the Yawning Portal, when Gale comes and starts buying drinks on the house to diffuse a fight about to break out in the corner. All this, before the mindflayer ship suddenly shows up above, you get to see the sheer panic that overtakes everyone around you, and you find yourself powerless to stop what's happening before you get taken.

It'd also give players time to familiarize themselves with the setting before everything goes sideways. A big reason why DA: Origin's backgrounds worked so well is because of this type of concept. You got to see how things changed drastically later in the game, instead of simply being told about it. That kind of concept also subconsciously provides an additional avenue for a player to assign extra motivation for their characters doing what they do in a roleplaying sense. (Maybe the poor reception of DOS2's Act 4 would have also been much improved if we visited the area it took place in, before heading off to the Act 3 Nameless Isles. On that note, BG3 starts off doing A LOT of telling rather than showing, really.)

Though, as with many other things, the existence of the eventual Origin system makes this a much more monumental task than it should be.

I have no problem with an exciting start like what they've given us. The art of good storytelling is that you need a good hook in the beginning to draw your audience in. This is good. It's a lot more exciting than the starts you get for Neverwinter Nights or Icewind Dale or even the previous Baldur's Gate games.

I like the pizza analogy. That really fits perfectly. It's good. Great even. It's just not at all what we were in the mood for and what we ordered.

And just to be clear, I'm not here to complain. I'm here to suggest how to make the game better. It's great. They could release the full game today and I'd be happy.

But it could be SO much better if they gave us really great pizza instead of a really great lasagna thing.

The changes required aren't monumental although the DOS 2 engine may have major limitations for all I know.

1) Time - a clock and a light source that moves in sympathy across the sky. In essence a moving light or moon above you.
2) Spawn "stuff" and have them walk about the map hunting (wolves) , patrolling (goblins) etc. and unspawn after X time.
3) On rest roll dice and spawn/not spawn "stuff" in camp (risk). Higher risk in dungion zones and underdark.
4) Short rest moves light abit.
5) After XXX time have the goblin attack the druid camp regardless OR have the Tieflings attack the goblins to attempt to get on the road. Being backed into a corner like the tieflings would cause them to do "something" rather than wait to die.

That would add so much to the "lived in" world feel. Add a few minutes intro to each origin character showing their backstory and circumstances that lead them to be on the ship. This would add insight to the player to why their live sucks (Astarion) or how they got the gith box etc.

The world needs to react organically without the player interacting with it for there to be a sense of urgency and immersion. Nobody is asking for Larian to rewrite the entire game. Stuff plopped on the static map just standing there for days/weeks/ever waiting for a "trigger" from the player is just plain awful.

This ^^^^^ is real feedback and has been said again and again by thousands of players in every way possible. Over the past year I see 2 general repeating opinions,

1) BG3 needs to be a Balduers gate (5e) game here is why, followed by a detailed list of x - or words to that effect
2) Game is fun and pretty - dont change (5e) = bad although I now nothing about it

One of these ^^ is feedback one is not. Praise needs to be followed by criticism and vice versa.

Let's say it again. The game as a stand alone NOT Baldurs gate (5e) game is fun and playable and is better than DOS2. What make it batter ARE the 5e and BG lore elements not the DOS2 mechanics, story or origin crap. Asking for more BG elements in a BG game is not an unreasonable request. If this was DOS3 with BG elements I would be on the side of the DOS fans. It isn't.

Please no timed quests!

I still think "timed quests" would make the game more enjoyable, BUT... And that's a big BUT... They need to rebalance the game, which they need to do anyway.

So many are opposed to having things happen after a certain amount of days goes by, but let me propose this:

Imagine you leave the grove and face encounters that don't almost wipe your party each fight. Imagine your companions don't require a long rest to have a conversation with you. So you don't feel like you need to long rest so often.

Would having events occur after 3 or 4 long rests be such an issue if standardly you weren't feeling like you needed to long rest so much? They would only occur IF you really abused the system because it would make sense to have SOMEthing happen if you're going to truly drag your feet.

Timed quests suck when you have to scramble and stress about which path to take and which quest you aren't going to be able to complete. If it isn't about locking you out of this quest or that, but about just making SOMEthing happen, a timed event can be very fun.