|
|
|
veteran
|
veteran
Joined: May 2019
|
And how about for premade stories? Especially cRPGs? How prevalent is it there? Do you consider it antithetical to play characters who have history in their setting in a computer game? No, this is perfectly fine ... in any game that is not D&D. But not acceptable in a D&D game. Furthermore, I also would differentiate an RPG where the game's story is entirely centered on one central character, and you are roleplaying that character (like Geralt in the Witcher games). In those types of games as well it would be okay including in a D&D game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2021
|
No, what you are saying here is what is complete b.s. Pre-gen characters have always been shortcuts for new players in D&D. The very idea of D&D has always been about creating and playing your own character. But I do agree: nothing's worth discussing or debating with you. Pregen characters have always existed. They have been played by new players and old players alike. I've played DnD in various incarnations throughout the decades, since the 1980s. I've witnessed it numerous times, and I've often played pregenerated characters myself, sometimes at conventions. This is a simple fact. It's not an argument. It's not bad fun to enjoy playing a pregen, and it doesn't violate what DnD has always been about... because DnD has demonstrably always been about playing characters, whether those characters were pregenerated or self-made. * I understand it's not your preference. But there's a difference between you having a personal preference and you telling us that DnD is all about your personal preference to the exclusion of anyone else's. In other words, you're not an authority on what DnD is all about. You're just an authority on what DnD is about to you, and there's nothing wrong with that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2019
|
No, what you are saying here is what is complete b.s. Pre-gen characters have always been shortcuts for new players in D&D. The very idea of D&D has always been about creating and playing your own character. But I do agree: nothing's worth discussing or debating with you. Pregen characters have always existed. They have been played by new players and old players alike. I've played DnD in various incarnations throughout the decades, since the 1980s. I've witnessed it numerous times, and I've often played pregenerated characters myself, sometimes at conventions. This is a simple fact. It's not an argument. It's not bad fun to enjoy playing a pregen, and it doesn't violate what DnD has always been about... because DnD has demonstrably always been about playing characters, whether those characters were pregenerated or self-made. * I understand it's not your preference. But there's a difference between you having a personal preference and you telling us that DnD is all about your personal preference to the exclusion of anyone else's. In other words, you're not an authority on what DnD is all about. You're just an authority on what DnD is about to you, and there's nothing wrong with that. I'm not an authority on D&D but you are. Sure. Well, I reject your authority on D&D. Pre-gen characters are not D&D. Do they exist? Sure they do. But they're not what playing D&D is all about. And using the possibility of pre-gen characters existing in D&D as evidence that D&D is not about playing your own character is disingenuous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2021
|
I don't plan on playing any of the Origin characters, I have developed a couple of characters in my playthrough's so far that I will stick with on full release. I played an Origin character for DOS II but you pretty much had to if you wanted the best experience.
I don't mind having them as party members however.
Last edited by Ranxerox; 21/11/21 04:56 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Sep 2020
|
And how about for premade stories? Especially cRPGs? How prevalent is it there? Do you consider it antithetical to play characters who have history in their setting in a computer game? No, not at all ^.^ It's rather the staple driving factor of a great many very good video games. It's not even truly an absolute deal-breaker for something to really capture the feeling of being a D&d game either - but it is a strong strike against it that the game needs to make up for in other ways. A game needs to work exceptionally hard to capture the feel of playing D&D well, if it is going down the path of pre-existing characters that the player picks from rather than making their own, but it can be done well. (Edit to continue) I've looked at other up and coming d&d games, but even though some of them looked very promising visually (There's a new dark alliance, I think?), the discovery that we would just be playing existing characters - no matter how famous or special - completely removed my desire to play them at all. I just lost all real interest, because for me it wouldn't feel like playing D&D, or be able to answer the whole point of WHY I go to a D&D game. It might be a great game and very enjoyable (and I'm sure I would!), but if my itch is for a D&D game, it won't be able too scratch it. The thing is, when I'm in the mood for the sort of game that it is, I'll probably go and look at it, and when I do, I'll enjoy it - but I won't think of it as a D&D game, not really - just a very good video game set in the forgotten realms. Here's the really interesting part: Is there was NO custom character available AT ALL in BG3... if it was JUST "Pick Your Character" and then a selection from between each of the origin characters, and a blurb provided for each one... I would be far, far less critical of it, because it wouldn't be trying to make itself out to bee something it's not. It wouldn't really feel like playing a D&D game - but I might enjoy it if the story was good and the gameplay was solid. However, because there is the ability to make your own character, it is making a claim to a type of game that it ultimately fails to be, when that character is a blank empty nothing with no attachment to the story, and which only serves to highlight how the origin characters - who are still there and in your face regardless - are much more awesome than her... it fails, and fails hard, as well as creating story-telling dissonance. It need sot either be the player character, and available companions - who are only companions, and not the player character... Or it needs to be a selection of fixed main characters, of whom we only choose one, and that has major impact on the game as a whole and the experience of playing through Their story, as opposed to someone else's. I'm not saying it's impossible to do both, but [...]the crux of the problem is this: I need to feel like my character is tied to the story in their own unique way; I lead the party and I make our decisions, and there's got to be a reason why I am doing that, in amongst all the other strong personalities, even if I, by character, am unassuming and unassertive; the reason must be potent and present enough to cover this. If there is no unique factor that ties my character to the story in a way that the others are not so-tied, then my character's reason for existing at all falls apart, in the scope of the game. If any origin character can hop into the lead role without anything changing, then it seems like there's nothing to support the existence of my character and their participation in the plot - especially when all those special characters are still there and still have all of their own special plot connections going on. If, on the other hand, something does change, and does set me apart as being tied to the plot in a unique way that the others are not... then we have the problem that the player character becomes a non-entity in a different way - that is, if any origin can hop into their shoes, assume the role of leader, and inherit the special unique plot-tie that makes them so, and still has their own stuff going on As Well, then the player character is an automatically inferior and less interesting choice, because they just have a blank empty nothingness where the origins have their personal stories. This is the problem that BG3 has right now. By trying to do both sets of things at the same time [having Origin characters AND Custom characters], they shoot themselves in the foot and cut their own legs out from under themselves. Quoting because this ^ was added in an edit and thus may not have been seen by people. Brackets and Spoiler section added by me for clarification/brevity. +1
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2019
|
I don't plan on playing any of the Origin characters, I have developed a couple of characters in my playthrough's so far that I will stick with on full release. I played an Origin character for DOS II but you pretty much had to if you wanted the best experience. Same here. As a matter of principle for me, I won't touch the origin PCs. But the main point here is that in this game too just like in D:OS2, one's gaming experience is superior playing an origin PC and inferior playing a custom PC. That is blatantly unfair, and is so very obviously an attempt by Larian to coerce players to use their origin PCs over a custom PC. At a minimum, the two options ought to be equivalent. And if they are not (per Larian's own admission thus far), then it is very much fair game for people to criticize this and to consider it a major flaw in the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2019
|
And how about for premade stories? Especially cRPGs? How prevalent is it there? Do you consider it antithetical to play characters who have history in their setting in a computer game? No, not at all ^.^ It's rather the staple driving factor of a great many very good video games. It's not even truly an absolute deal-breaker for something to really capture the feeling of being a D&d game either - but it is a strong strike against it that the game needs to make up for in other ways. A game needs to work exceptionally hard to capture the feel of playing D&D well, if it is going down the path of pre-existing characters that the player picks from rather than making their own, but it can be done well. (Edit to continue) I've looked at other up and coming d&d games, but even though some of them looked very promising visually (There's a new dark alliance, I think?), the discovery that we would just be playing existing characters - no matter how famous or special - completely removed my desire to play them at all. I just lost all real interest, because for me it wouldn't feel like playing D&D, or be able to answer the whole point of WHY I go to a D&D game. It might be a great game and very enjoyable (and I'm sure I would!), but if my itch is for a D&D game, it won't be able too scratch it. The thing is, when I'm in the mood for the sort of game that it is, I'll probably go and look at it, and when I do, I'll enjoy it - but I won't think of it as a D&D game, not really - just a very good video game set in the forgotten realms. Here's the really interesting part: Is there was NO custom character available AT ALL in BG3... if it was JUST "Pick Your Character" and then a selection from between each of the origin characters, and a blurb provided for each one... I would be far, far less critical of it, because it wouldn't be trying to make itself out to bee something it's not. It wouldn't really feel like playing a D&D game - but I might enjoy it if the story was good and the gameplay was solid. However, because there is the ability to make your own character, it is making a claim to a type of game that it ultimately fails to be, when that character is a blank empty nothing with no attachment to the story, and which only serves to highlight how the origin characters - who are still there and in your face regardless - are much more awesome than her... it fails, and fails hard, as well as creating story-telling dissonance. It need sot either be the player character, and available companions - who are only companions, and not the player character... Or it needs to be a selection of fixed main characters, of whom we only choose one, and that has major impact on the game as a whole and the experience of playing through Their story, as opposed to someone else's. I'm not saying it's impossible to do both, but [...]the crux of the problem is this: I need to feel like my character is tied to the story in their own unique way; I lead the party and I make our decisions, and there's got to be a reason why I am doing that, in amongst all the other strong personalities, even if I, by character, am unassuming and unassertive; the reason must be potent and present enough to cover this. If there is no unique factor that ties my character to the story in a way that the others are not so-tied, then my character's reason for existing at all falls apart, in the scope of the game. If any origin character can hop into the lead role without anything changing, then it seems like there's nothing to support the existence of my character and their participation in the plot - especially when all those special characters are still there and still have all of their own special plot connections going on. If, on the other hand, something does change, and does set me apart as being tied to the plot in a unique way that the others are not... then we have the problem that the player character becomes a non-entity in a different way - that is, if any origin can hop into their shoes, assume the role of leader, and inherit the special unique plot-tie that makes them so, and still has their own stuff going on As Well, then the player character is an automatically inferior and less interesting choice, because they just have a blank empty nothingness where the origins have their personal stories. This is the problem that BG3 has right now. By trying to do both sets of things at the same time [having Origin characters AND Custom characters], they shoot themselves in the foot and cut their own legs out from under themselves. Quoting because this ^ was added in an edit and thus may not have been seen by people. Brackets and Spoiler section added by me for clarification/brevity. +1 Thanks! I had not seen this, and fully agree it warrants a +1. @Niara is right on point! In fact, perhaps the best way for us to make our custom PC special and central to the game is to kill off ALL the origin characters at the earliest possible moment. But of course Larian's made sure that cannot happen either, right? Because then we wouldn't have a viable party!
Last edited by kanisatha; 21/11/21 06:21 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Feb 2020
|
In fact, perhaps the best way for us to make our custom PC special and central to the game is to kill off ALL the origin characters at the earliest possible moment. But of course Larian's made sure that cannot happen either, right? Because then we wouldn't have a viable party! The best way in my opinion would be if the MC was the only one to have dreams and special powers. Tadpole 1.0 = become a mindflayer or die Tadpole 2.0 = become a true soul Tadpole 3.0 = true soul + dream + powers
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
Either we're talking at cross purposes or we've strayed a little from the topic at hand.
Before I go on, if you want to come to a conversation about D&D to tell people there is a 'wrong' way to play, there isn't. There might be a way you don't enjoy or don't find interesting but there isn't a wrong way to play. Some people are very precious with their own personal view of what collaborative story-telling is, but please don't confuse your preference with universality. So, please refrain from saying something is 'antithetical' to D&D, or that someone's views are bullshit.
Now, If we're talking at cross-purposes, its because we're using the term 'D&D' to refer to two very different things. There's D&D the roleplaying game that involves real people, with a referee on whose wetware a imaginary world is built, in which a sandbox is theoretically possible. Then there is D&D the term we're using for the rules system that is being adapted into a computer game; computer games can never be sandboxes, the world is unchanging, by the time we occupy it, its story will have been finished for months, how much of sandbox exists in a crpg is usually proportionate with how present a narrative is. So from this point of view, people complaining that BG:3 isn't D&D, doesn't hold much water for me, it can never allow for the kind of character you want. What I hear when people clamor against the origin system is people asking for games more like Ultima, or Elder Scrolls, or Solasta, characters who are complete non-entities.
You don't want to play origin characters because you don't believe in assuming the role of a character who wasn't written by you, well Tav can't be written by you either, that isn't on the table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
Which is an interesting sentiment when many previous D&D video games have managed that just fine... If you're saying that it's not on the table, are you trying to say that it's simply not possible for Larian to manage what other D&D video games in the past have generally managed to achieve as a matter of course? I can't say I agree with that... I think they can; they just need to try harder, or they need to make up their mind about what sort of game they are producing and focus on that.
Back on topic, though: None of them, because playing as someone else's predefined character is antithetical to creating the feeling of playing D&D for me, and no game that does that can realistically to scratch that itch for me. It will not be able to feel like playing D&D, and thus will not be able to feel like a true D&D video game, if I must assume the identity of someone else's preconceived character, rather than one of my own creation. My judgement of them game, and whether it fails or succeeds as a game worth playing for me, will always be based entirely on my experiences assuming that I am playing my own character, and how well that character and the choices I make about who they are and what they are like are acknowledged and responded to by the game, and how well their choices impact the story that progresses around them.
If the game was not offering a custom character, and gave only origin choices, I might play it next time I felt like playing a generic fixed-character rpg - I might enjoy it and have fun with picking which protagonist I wished to guide through the game, and watching how the world changed based on their personal story and interwoven details, as opposed to a different one... but it would not be a D&D game to me, and would not feel like playing D&D to me.
To Sozz in particular, if you are hearing people asking for blank non-entity characters when they react against the Origin system, then it seems as though you are not listening particularly clearly or fairly to that side of the discussion; I'd invite you, in good humour and with no ill intent meant, to go back and read through again, since that is very much not what anyone is asking for at all.
Last edited by Niara; 22/11/21 07:28 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I've looked at other up and coming d&d games, but even though some of them looked very promising visually (There's a new dark alliance, I think?), the discovery that we would just be playing existing characters - no matter how famous or special - completely removed my desire to play them at all. I just lost all real interest, because for me it wouldn't feel like playing D&D, or be able to answer the whole point of WHY I go to a D&D game. It might be a great game and very enjoyable (and I'm sure I would!), but if my itch is for a D&D game, it won't be able too scratch it.
The thing is, when I'm in the mood for the sort of game that it is, I'll probably go and look at it, and when I do, I'll enjoy it - but I won't think of it as a D&D game, not really - just a very good video game set in the forgotten realms.
Here's the really interesting part:
Is there was NO custom character available AT ALL in BG3... if it was JUST "Pick Your Character" and then a selection from between each of the origin characters, and a blurb provided for each one... I would be far, far less critical of it, because it wouldn't be trying to make itself out to bee something it's not. It wouldn't really feel like playing a D&D game - but I might enjoy it if the story was good and the gameplay was solid.
However, because there is the ability to make your own character, it is making a claim to a type of game that it ultimately fails to be, when that character is a blank empty nothing with no attachment to the story, and which only serves to highlight how the origin characters - who are still there and in your face regardless - are much more awesome than her... it fails, and fails hard, as well as creating story-telling dissonance.
It need sot either be the player character, and available companions - who are only companions, and not the player character... Or it needs to be a selection of fixed main characters, of whom we only choose one, and that has major impact on the game as a whole and the experience of playing through Their story, as opposed to someone else's.
I'm not saying it's impossible to do both, but the crux of the problem is this: I need to feel like my character is tied to the story in their own unique way; I lead the party and I make our decisions, and there's got to be a reason why I am doing that, in amongst all the other strong personalities, even if I, by character, am unassuming and unassertive; the reason must be potent and present enough to cover this. If there is no unique factor that ties my character to the story in a way that the others are not so-tied, then my character's reason for existing at all falls apart, in the scope of the game.
If any origin character can hop into the lead role without anything changing, then it seems like there's nothing to support the existence of my character and their participation in the plot - especially when all those special characters are still there and still have all of their own special plot connections going on. If, on the other hand, something does change, and does set me apart as being tied to the plot in a unique way that the others are not... then we have the problem that the player character becomes a non-entity in a different way - that is, if any origin can hop into their shoes, assume the role of leader, and inherit the special unique plot-tie that makes them so, and still has their own stuff going on As Well, then the player character is an automatically inferior and less interesting choice, because they just have a blank empty nothingness where the origins have their personal stories. This is the problem that BG3 has right now. By trying to do both sets of things at the same time, they shoot themselves in the foot and cut their own legs out from under themselves. Alright before I actually answer, let me say this. There are a few things here that don't quite land with me, at least for what I understand rpgs to be capable of. I don't assume that you need to be the leader of the group, I don't even need to be main character in the story. I've commented on this elsewhere, on topics that actually had to do with this, but the game needs to come up with, or at least drive home better, why all these miserable people are working together, possibly with a few scenes dealing with everyone's conflicting egos. We're given a reason The Tadpole its mystery and peril compel everyone to work together, but the game doesn't really feel the need to justify further, I think because in a meta way they understand this is what people are playing the game for, it's a adventure story, join up or be bored. As far as I can remember, apart from the banter walking around, none of the camp conversations occur with anyone other than the MC, assuming the the MC could be any origin character it isn't a stretch for every origin character to have conversations with each other. Particularly egregious is the conversation between the Kithrak and Lae'zel, where some nobody who probably isn't even a Gith decides if Lae'zel speaks and even, to a certain extent, what she says. In your game Lae'zel does this because Tav (for reasons that make him the main character) is the biggest swinging dick in the party, in mine, Tav doesn't have total control over the conversation because its a story about multiple characters each with their own histories and motivations, I'd be interested to know which you find the more interesting. This is kind of what I was referring to earlier, I don't think it's necessary for one person to be the main character in this story, Tav can be Aragorn, Frodo, or Sam. If this were a Lord of the Rings game, would you be against the option to play any one of the fellowship? ... can we start a new thread talking about a LotRs crpg. More on topic. It's also possible that because we know the personalities of each origin character while they're not being 'piloted' people assume that they'll be forced to play them that way. If DOS:II is anything to go by that won't be the case. So there being so 'in your face' is exactly how they'd be as companions, you could see that as a failing because you could be playing as them, but you're only experiencing that as a custom character. That on its own is one of the more compelling reasons to play as Tav. As for connecting Tav to the story, this is kind of contradictory to me, for me connecting Tav to the story is making him have a history, either one you're not going to have control over, or one contrived in the moment for you to be a part of, it's like saying, I'd like the backstory of Shadowheart, but I'd like to customize her appearance, race, class, and personality. I'm not against that, I've wanted ways to flesh out Tav's character, but I don't see that as an either or situation with the origin characters, unlike what I keep seeing around here, calling out how resources are used at Larian isn't a compelling argument for game design, I'm just a consumer, their business acumen doesn't concern me, they should be able to do all of the above. And finally, things having to do with the story in the EA, are still in flux, it's clearly not a priority for the EA for us to test the story
Last edited by Sozz; 22/11/21 07:42 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2020
|
I don't think that's what people are asking for, I think that's what functionally happens.
|
|
|
|
|
|
old hand
|
|
old hand
Joined: Dec 2020
|
I find the circular arguing about what is or isn't DnD to be wasteful. Strip the purity arguments away and you find something more compelling - that there are very good reasons why very few developers in the gaming industry are pushing the system as hard as what Larian is trying to do. And it has nothing to do with Larian trying to push any boundaries in this department, as this isn't some budget thing.
The real thing people should be focusing on is that the Origin system simultaneously diminishes the importance of a custom character, AND robs the actual companions/origin characters of their agency. The latter is concerning in ways rarely ever brought up in these parts, indirectly stripping down their characterization due to the idea that they have to remain somewhat open-ended in order to become potential lead characters, instead of actually being allowed to become their own thing. All in the name of dubious 'replay value' that only really translates to maybe 10-20% of the content being changed in any meaningful way. All these development resources sunk into the system and sacrifices being made in other areas, for what in the end?
Someone brought up that the origin system may largely exist for multiplayer, but let's be realistic, the vast majority of DOS2 multiplayer sessions I had participated in had people rolling custom characters, and nobody really gave a shit about the story. The only sessions where origin characters were used were those that weren't composed of full 4 player groups.
And before people bring up WotR in an attempt to have some gotcha argument since that game does heavily emphasize replay value, there is one MAJOR fundamental difference between the mythic paths and origins. The mythic paths change the way you approach quests, had major story differences along with changing how many of the game's characters reacted to you, and factor heavily into your actual builds during gameplay. It's a lot more than having a few cutscenes and story snippets gated behind them, which is what all the Origin system really did in DOS2 and promises to do in BG3 thus far.
Last edited by Saito Hikari; 22/11/21 09:36 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Jun 2020
|
Just going to spoiler tag this, because even though it is discussing origin characters and custom PCs, I feel like the discussion is far enough of a tangent to not want to bog down the thread with those who aren't interested. It's nice that you don't assume you need to be the group's leader. Unfortunately, the empirical fact of the game is that you ARE. There is no avoiding this and no circumventing it. You ARE the leader, whether you want to be or not. What you say goes, everyone agrees to follow you unless you specifically drive them away, the party is your party. The game cannot progress without you deciding what to do. So, as much as you many not feel like you need to be, that doesn't change the fact that you are. you can imagine subtext of party decision and agreement, but you have to put that there yourself because the game isn't doing it - the game is making your character the Boss. Relying on meta-game "You're here to form a party and travel together, so do it already" and "They obey you because you're the PC" is not good enough, not by a long shot, and it never will be. In a video game context, however, they cannot make you Not the leader, because I'm sure you can imagine how well it would go down when the party discusses what to do, you state your opinion, others overrule you and then you lose control of the whole party and are left on your own, because THEY have decided to go to the hag's lair next, and you just have to follow or f-off... yeah, that's not going to work. So, by necessity of being a single-player video game, you are the party leader, both in-universe and out, and there's no way round that, realistically. In your game Lae'zel does this because Tav (for reasons that make him the main character) is the biggest swinging dick in the party, in mine, Tav doesn't have total control over the conversation because its a story about multiple characters each with their own histories and motivations, I'd be interested to know which you find the more interesting. In my games my Pc is never named Tav, and rarely has any kind of a dick to swing around at all, thanks. In your game, Lae DOES do exactly what you say, and your Tav DOES have complete control over the conversation, which will not and cannot progress until you tell Lae what to do, and she WILL do as you tell her to. Unless we're talking here about our ideal styles of fixing this sequence and the design in general... in which case, it sounds as though in your writing, this plays out more as a non-interacting cutscene, that maybe gives you a chance to interject forcefully if you want to at some point ,and thence bring about the fallout that comes from that, on both sides most likely... to which I say sure, fine; as long as it makes sense in universe and is also still engaging and mechanically tenable for the player to play, that's great! BUT... and here's the problem with running not-the-leader... but we still come back to the problem of you, with your PC, still functionally calling all the shots and deciding where everyone goes and what fights you pick or don't. The only way you can run a game where your PC is not the party leader and final decision-maker for the group is one where when the party reaches a decision about your next objective, you are then Locked In to following that objective and not deviating from it until the party decides what to do next... and that can mean at times that you can, as the player of the game, decide you want to follow a particular quest or objective, get overruled by your other party members, and be disallowed from following it... and that just isn't going to fly in a single player video game. If you don't face that problem with lock-ins and overruling, though, you're left with the steep immersion dissonance and scene break of having the party decide together to go left, and then, following your PC's control,. going right to explore something else... and then all following you anyway, even though they just all agreed to do something completely different. However you splice it, you end up with serious mechanical and immersive problems if the player character is not functionally the party leader in universe. You may not feel that, by character, you need to be the leader - and that's fine; in fact many people don't. My own characters are rarely leader material at all, and often are not the sorts to be assertive enough to insist on it in any way... unfortunately there is a reason why the PC being the party leader has been treated as a functional necessity within the writing of these games for just about as long as they've been being made, and it's not actually a power-fulfilment or ego-based reason. As for 'My' resolution to this... no... you mischaracterise me. That's not generally the way it should work. The way it generally works is that the Pc has a reason to make the choices they do, and others follow because they deem that quest important enough to see through with you - the implication being that no matter what others decide to do, you're still going to be doing what you feel you have to, one way or another. It's not about leading other people at all - that's just a consequence and a side-effect. By all sharing the same identical reason, without the PC being set apart from them in any way, there is no reason for them to follow us if they think their idea for a cure is better, and people have pointed out the dissonance this causes all over the first act of the game, repeatedly. More on topic. It's also possible that because we know the personalities of each origin character while they're not being 'piloted' people assume that they'll be forced to play them that way. Not quite, for the most part - rather it's people feeling like the game establishes the personality and behaviours of these characters very strongly, and we know them, and who they are... so players who are interested in being genuinely immersed in their game space will end up feeling compelled to act as they would and make the choices that they do, or else fee like they're violating/rewriting/retconning/AU-ing that character, and for many folks that's not a comfortable feeling, and detracts heavily from the game experience... but so does feeling compelled to make choices they don't want to at the same time. This is why making strongly characterised characters exist as companions, but also be playable as well, is ultimately a bad move that hamstrings itself in execution. Maybe it'll limp to the finish line despite that, and get some cheers from people... but it will be despite, not because of it. As for connecting Tav to the story, this is kind of contradictory to me, for me connecting Tav to the story is making him have a history, either one you're not going to have control over, or one contrived in the moment for you to be a part of, Er... yes? Not a whole back-story, not a defined history like these origin characters, but a tie; an element that intrinsically connects your character to the story that is about to play out. The reason why this is you, here. Yes. Something that we didn't likely choose or pick, because it is the pre-defined driving force that will set us, and not someone else, on this adventure. That's what most folks asking for something like this are wanting. In NWN2, for example, you were the survivor, the one being sought, and another reason besides that you as a character didn't know about yourself (but it's important to note for the conversation here - before you knew about the big reason, there were other smaller reasons that held up long enough in the early game to get you to the big one. BG3 doesn't have any of those yet, even if there is a big reason waiting to be revealed later). And that was GREAT. Everything else about your character - who you were, what you were like, who you liked, the kinds of decisions you generally make, whether you were a shut-in in your youth or a terrible flirt, all of those things, completely up to you to define for your character as you saw fit, and some of them had actual impact upon the story as it unfolded later, depending on what you defined for yourself when given the opportunity... But there was one element that was intrinsically out of our control that tied us to the plot, and was a Potent enough reason to mean that we were necessarily left to have to lead and make the decisions for the group (or at least for ourselves knowing that our companions would follow), even if we didn't want to and weren't a leader. It's just one element that is a strong enough element to hold up to the in-universe questions of "Why is it you, and not someone else? Why must it be you?", no matter who else you are or choose to be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
enthusiast
|
|
enthusiast
Joined: Apr 2020
|
In fact, perhaps the best way for us to make our custom PC special and central to the game is to kill off ALL the origin characters at the earliest possible moment. But of course Larian's made sure that cannot happen either, right? Because then we wouldn't have a viable party! The best way in my opinion would be if the MC was the only one to have dreams and special powers. Tadpole 1.0 = become a mindflayer or die Tadpole 2.0 = become a true soul Tadpole 3.0 = true soul + dream + powers That's a great idea. In NWN2 the MC had the Shard, and the powers that came with it. In the sequel Mask of the Betrayer, the MC had the Spirit Eater. Being special made the MC the central character.
|
|
|
|
|
|
addict
|
|
addict
Joined: Oct 2021
|
Excellent post Niara and I completely agree.
Last edited by Ranxerox; 22/11/21 12:26 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2019
|
As always, @Niara is right again.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2019
|
If someone were to say that Larian should get rid of dice in BG3, that would not be just a personal preference. That would be something antithetical to D&D, because D&D is based on a D20 system, and to remove dice from D&D would be to make it not D&D anymore. So yes, there are things, many things in fact, which are integral to what D&D is all about, and to not have any of them in a D&D game would be antithetical to D&D. And as such I for one will continue to point out things in BG3 that are not what D&D is about.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: Oct 2021
|
And as such I for one will continue to point out things in BG3 that are not what D&D is about. Everybody needs a purpose, I guess. Seems to me that something that's been a part of the game from the beginning, that's existed in every edition, and that's been a part of conventions throughout the decades is obviously a part of the game. But, whatever, you know, I mean, internet comments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
veteran
|
|
veteran
Joined: May 2019
|
And as such I for one will continue to point out things in BG3 that are not what D&D is about. Everybody needs a purpose, I guess. Seems to me that something that's been a part of the game from the beginning, that's existed in every edition, and that's been a part of conventions throughout the decades is obviously a part of the game. But, whatever, you know, I mean, internet comments. You are welcome to disagree with me, but no need to be snide.
|
|
|
|
|
