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)

I am playing again right now. Downloaded a few mods to test a few mechanics and oh boy does this game need work. Dialogues do not fit, going stealthy as solo rogue or druid has issues and so on.

This is not BG or BG 2, it even is a new publisher. So i was ready for changes. I even welcome them to a point. I still agree that larian is going a bit over the top with the epicness. Sometimes less is more. All this monumental storytelling still has so many loose ends, even in act 1 and i hope they get it fixed before they release or run out of money and we have yet another unfinished game at our hands we were looking forward to. (i would even donate if it comes to that).

Be that as it may, does anyone think the story we are discussing now will be changed? It is not so far off from existing games or novels. There have been more fantastic stories. (if you want to read one with a good laugh, read the Greyhawk triology about the Justicar Evelyn and his Fairy).

They should have opted for another name and not "Baldur's Gate 3". No wonder so many peopl are looking for a sequel and comparing. They should add "A new beginning" to the title. We are after the second sundering which is how long after BG 1 and 2? I think BG2 ended 1369 DR and the second sundering was 1482 to 1487 DR after the spellplague (i would love spellscars).

So over 100 years later...

You don't really want to know because you've already presumed my answer. That is not asking a question in good faith.

Guys. Come on. Based on established FR lore, a gith Kith'raki would not just fly away and leave a subordinate to claim his queen's ultimate prize.

And I don't care how much Halsin believes in balance of nature, if someone killed all of his friends and loved ones, I doubt he'd just casually accept it especially since he shows examples in other ways of being very passionate about the grove and his friends there.

Come on. The story doesn't line up with itself or established FR lore.

Oh yes I definitely want to know.
Feel free not to answer the second question if my assumptions were wrong.

Yes quite easy. In a world of magic and dragons water is still wet right? People need to eat, people love their families etc. The settings change not life motivations. In a world of magic stuff doesn't just happen because of magic. What do you think an IPhone would look like to someone living in the middle ages?

Let's assume dragons exist. They fly and everything, if this dragon that was the size of a house had the wings of a sparrow would it makes sense that it could fly? Imagination has its limitations.

If someone kills your entire family no matter the reason my reaction would not be, meh. I don't care if there was dragons and magic in the world.

If I need to expain further I am wasting my time.

Oh yes. Just read a bit about extremists and fanatism. Easily explainable. I already told soul-scar a few posts back. And especially D&D, that had so much going for alingnments. For people that think "normally" that is not understandable. Go a bit into psychology and you will understand the explanations. That has
nothing to do with rationality.

I cant help the feeling that this should not even be matter of debate ...

I dunno how about you, but i allways followed rule "DM has spoken". :-/
We might not agree with his conclusions, but once DM say that some NPC will react like this, or that ... it simply will.

And right here, DM is Larian.

A Kith'rak, based on established lore, is a proud individual who seeks greater and greater favor with his Queen.

Here is this ultimate weapon the gith are all looking for. He believes the people in front of him have said weapon. All he has to do is kill them and claim it for himself. "Quedenos! Fry them!" Dragon breathes fire. You're all dead. Voss stretches out his hand and claims the weapon. 30 seconds tops.

So why would he just leave and let a petty subordinate kill your characters and claim this ultimate prize while he does something so mundane as to "inform" the rest of the gith pack that they've claimed the weapon and their search is done? Makes no sense. Kill the adventurers, claim the weapon himself, take it and present it to Vlaakith. That makes WAY more sense from a common, logical perspective.

Come on guys. Don't give me, "The characters don't think like logical, rational beings. They are extremists and fanatics."

That only goes so far.

But, in this particular situation, as in everything regarding BG3 until Larian says otherwise, the DM has asked for our opinions. Stating that things are like this because Larian decided it so and that it's therefor not up to debate, is like saying we can stop giving feedback all together and should just let Larian do their thing. Sure, we can do that but what will we then do with all our free time?

Btw. Let's not throw psychology into this. I've taken psychology. I've studied human behavior and the behavior of animals and such. Even illogical people are logical and predictable in various ways. There is order even in chaos and chaos even in order.

I think the githyanki are crazy. They are psycho nutjobs for serving an undead lich queen and they do so very vehemently. This is established lore. They are crazy, intelligent, and very dangerous, and they serve their queen zealously.

But even their insanity has rationale to it. They are driven and insane because they are sold out to their belief in their lich queen. As such, a gith who does not act in an extreme way to serve his lich queen and gain glory for it, is acting contrary to how he should act using his own people's logic and reasoning.

Exactly.

Ok, if you do not want to go into psychology, thats ok. But if you took psychology classes and studied human behaviour i cannot understand your posts, sorry.

So we go with what Ragnarok said:

Larian is the GM and the GMs word is rule ( only not on shove please). All hail Lord Ao.

Yes, and again, no one is questioning this, which is to say, people who love Larian's games and will buy and play and enjoy any game made by Larian. Not because it is D&D or FR or BG (because most of them couldn't care less about any of these things), but because they are die-hard fans of ANY game that is a Larian game.

I, however, have an interest in this game for one and only one reason: that it says "Baldur's Gate 3" in its title. If not for that I would not be here in this forum discussing this game because this game would then have nothing of real interest to me. If a game is going to be advertised as "Baldur's Gate 3," it is eminently reasonable for a die-hard fan of the first two games in that franchise to expect that this third game in the franchise will look and feel and play like the first two (with complete consideration for the fact that it will be more technologically modern, have more modern graphics, and use the current ruelset rather than the old ruleset). But for me, and yes for MANY others LIKE ME, this game in its current state does not satisfactorily pass that test.

Of course Larian is the GM and the GM rules.

However, if the GM makes rules and alters the world so much that the players are unhappy with it, the players will go find another GM.

Again, we're here making suggestions. If Larian doesn't listen to our suggestions then that's Larian's call and I respect it.

But until Larian says, "Listen guys. We're not going to make this more like D&D and we don't give a flying rats behind about making it cohesive with the FR lore and world," I'm going to keep suggesting that Larian should make the game more like D&D 5e with more cohesion in the story, dialogue, lore, etc.

Right now, the game doesn't make logical sense in many, many ways, and that's a problem for a lot of people as is evident by the numerous, numerous postings that you'll find all over this forum site, reddit, Steam, etc. Yes, there are lots of people who are also like, "No! Larian! We love the game as is! Don't change it at all!" I'm not saying there isn't.

But that doesn't matter. I'm going to continue to relentlessly call for more D&D 5e rules and stats and other elements that will make the game more like a true D&D world and more like a Baldur's Gate sequel because I'm hoping that those who are in my camp are the majority over those who are in the opposing camp.

Isn't that what you're ultimately doing?

There are two sides here, with some misconduct in the middle. People here are right in that the DM (Larian) has asked for feedback, and therefore it's unproductive to try and stifle criticism and feedback just because of disagreeing with it, or believing it's pointless. However, as JandK has tried to express too...



It's equally wrong and unproductive of those on the other side of the fence, wanting certain changes or ideas through, to actively try to shut down or devalue any input or criticism to said criticism that attempts to offer a different viewpoint. I've had reports on posts in this thread, that I've explicitly waited with moderating, because I view those reports as "This is bad man disagreeing with me, must punish". Discussions like these get very tribal and defensive because of opposition, or "Haters VS Larian Shills", where either side describes itself as a more flattering descriptor of "Being realistic" or "genuine criticism" - Where from my PoV, everyone has moments of failure when it comes to productive conversation. I see some people holds their point of view to be more valuable because of being criticism (and getting defensive if ever not fully agreed with by a respondent) and that's bad. None of you individually has more right to an opinion, than anyone else. Yet I see people indirectly imply this through disagreeing and trying to essentially say "This is criticism, you're not allowed to disagree with my criticism so go away."

You're all walking down the path of unproductive conversation, and if you ever find yourself in a position of wanting to silence someone just because you disagree: Stop. This is not a tribal war.

Let me preface this by saying that I agree that it's odd when the Kith'rak leaves right on the cusp of victory.

But that said, I think you're forgetting something.

You're assuming that it's a mistake when something strays away from established lore. By that measure, Drizzt is a mistake. Drow don't act that way, after all.

It's arguable that the scene we're watching is more complicated than we're giving it credit for.

In fact, I'll point out that the Githyanki creches don't all seem to be the same. If you play a Githyanki, for instance, you don't know anything about the purification that Lae'zel is talking about. There's literally a dialogue option for that, talking about how you never heard of such a thing in your creche.

Meaning that the Zaith'isk might not be known to every creche?

Basically, we don't know if the Kith'rak is following his mandate or not.

I don't want anyone to be silenced, and I'm certainly not asking for anyone to be silenced.

I just want Larian to know that there's an opposing viewpoint. In other words, if I didn't say "I disagree" and no one says "I disagree" then Larian might think everyone agrees because all the dissenting opinions are quiet or have been quieted.

Yes, that point was in defense of you, rather than alluding to you silencing others. As long as you behave and post constructively, no one should report or try to shut you down. At best, your challenge may help improve and refine the points of criticism. At worst, it's just disagreeing. I sense people taking disagreement a little too personally around here.

Don't strawman me then rant bunch of nonsense based on the strawman you invented, this is a discussion not a debate. The backstories are convoluted and fantastical, any ONE of these paradigms would be very unusual/unlikely even in magicland. 5 of them at the same time, in the same setting, on the same aircraft.....It is like getting on the number 22 bus and finding the Pope, Joe Biden, Mr Ed, superman and robocop having a casual chat at the back.

So there is no such thing as objectly bad storytelling? All writing and storytelling is subjectively good to someone therefore all writing must be wonderful and terrible in the same context? On a social level that is indeed true. However if my daughter does a crayon drawing of a spider and I sent it to the louvre because I subjectively think it is wonderful I doubt somehow it will end up next the Mona Lisa. Why? Objectively bad. Standards exist for a reason and when held to said standards.......I will let you work out the rest yourself.

That is not true ...

DM asked our opinions ... we told him ... work is done, we could end there.
Instead, we start to argue to each other to find out whos opinion is better. :-/
(That is the debate i was talking about BTW)

I mean i agree ... DM should be able to take feedback, but people should aswell be able to take his decisions ... there need to be ballance, that is what im saying. :-/

If you read this topic thoroughly, almost half posts says basicaly "everything is wrong and i know better" ... that dont seem ballanced to me, that seems demanding.

//Edit:
I just want to say that im glad im not alone in this anymore.