Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback The Dialogue System is Antithetical to D&D

The Dialogue System is Antithetical to D&D

With the way the dialogue system works in Baldur's Gate 3, it is extremely antithetical to Dungeons & Dragons and to party-based games in general.

When I think of D&D, I think of a group – a party working together towards a goal and each offering their unique skills and expertise to each other when the situation calls for it.

A Rogue will help spot and disarm traps, use their roguish trickery and sleight of hand to pickpocket or trick certain NPCs.

A Wizard will help the party with their knowledge of the arcane, or a Cleric with religion. The more stronger built Fighter or Barbarian can contribute their strength when it's needed, and could even intimidate certain NPCs into submission.

It's quite common for a party in D&D to have what is called a “face” of the party – the one who is the more charismatic of the group and adept in persuasion to do most of the talking and diplomacy with the various NPCs the group will meet on their adventure.

We often rely on one another for their various skills and expertise granted by their background and class. When diplomacy begins to break down or appear to be at a standstill, it is not uncommon for one of the party members to jump in to aid in the conversation. A Wizard could jump in when arcana knowledge is needed, a Rogue could make a sleight of hand check to pickpocket the NPC while distracted. These are things that often happen in a game of D&D. It's a party-based game after all that relies heavily on teamwork.

However the way the current dialogue system of Baldur's Gate 3 works, we can do none of these things with our different companions during dialogue.

The dialogue is solely restricted to the one who instigates the conversation with the NPC, or (arguably the most annoying) the one who happens to be closest to an NPC who triggers a dialogue with you. This often happens at the end of battles when the final enemy is defeated.

Once we are in a dialogue with an NPC, we are locked into it and can only rely on our individual skills. So if Shadowheart ends up being locked in a dialogue triggered by an NPC, my charismatic Tav who specialises in persuasion cannot aid her in a persuasion check. She can only rely on her own persuasion skill.

I've seen some others comment on how we should be able to switch between our various party members during dialogue, so we can utilise everyone's various skills when needed. That would definitely be a welcome improvement and help make the dialogue system more closer to how a typical game of D&D works with how the party interacts and helps one another.

But I haven't seen anything else about this issue, nor have I ever seen Larian comment on the issue. Compared to how often people left feedback in the beginning and after patches released, it seems to be getting quieter and quieter, and yet this issue with how the dialogue system works against a party working together persists.

With seemingly no intention being shown whether to ever address it.

We can have certain companions aid us in dialogue with various spells and scrolls, such as Shadowheart casting Guidance, but we cannot use her skills of religion or sleight of hand to help us when the option is available during a dialogue. Granted it is possible to switch character to someone who is not in dialogue and then use them to pickpocket an NPC you are talking to. However I am talking about all the skills that are available to be used in the context of being in dialogue with an NPC.

As a D&D game – as a party-based game, we should be able to make use of everyone's various skills to help out when conversing to NPCs. This happens outside of dialogue quiet often, for example when failing the religion check to identify the statue in the crypt, Shadowheart can succeed where you may likely fail (if not proficient in religion) and then she will speak aloud on what that statue is, where your character had no idea.

So we do have that feeling of working together as a party in Baldur's Gate 3, but just not inside of dialogue with NPCs due to how the current dialogue system works.

If Shadowheart can succeed in a religion check outside of dialogue where you failed, then she should be able to offer her expertise on religion when it is required during dialogue, and anyone else in your party with their various expertise.

That is one of the biggest features of playing a party-based game is it not? All of us working together and offering our own unique skills and expertise?

Perhaps switching characters talking to the NPC may be too much of a pain? Then what about simply having the same character talking, but when selecting a skill check during dialogue where a companion is better suited for, we use their skill to roll for it instead? That way the party would still be working together, pooling their skills and expertise for the group.

The Dialogue System is More Antithetical in Co-op Multiplayer

The reason why I made this post to begin with is because I recently tried co-op for the first time with a friend, and I ended up being even more disappointed with the dialogue system than I already was when using it in single player with a party.

The dialogue system is even worse when playing with a friend, because you cannot utilise any of each other's skills or expertise in conversation with an NPC.

I played a Cleric, and my friend could not select my Guidance cantrip during dialogue or whenever skill checks were in the middle of being made.

Companions under our control could not contribute anything to the other player, only to ourselves.

I could understand not being able to use each other's skills if we were not together, but we were together all the time, and every time he initiated dialogue with an NPC, I would join in immediately.

How are we supposed to work together as a party if we cannot make use of each player's skills during dialogue?

I had a group of 4 friends who were interested in playing a 4-player co-op game of Baldur's Gate 3 where we each would have a role to play in the party. But now we learn we cannot do that because the way the dialogue system works is completely antithetical to that kind of play, both in single-player and in co-op.

Will this issue ever be fixed? Has it even been acknowledged? Does anyone even care?

Shortly after the EA started, Swen did an interview with two German streamers (that I was never able to track back since then) where he basically promised (among other things) that this expanded dialogue system was something in the work.

Nothing ever came from it and I suspect that as far as they are concerned they consider the issue "solved" with the current "roll and buff" interface.

Truly hope they expand upon the system prior to release

Yeah it's awful.

+1

That's what worries me the most about the current system with no sign from Larian acknowledging it or following up on it after almost 2 years of EA now.

It worries me because the more and more they release whilst ignoring on improving the dialogue system and as they continue to finish the remaining Acts of the game, the more it makes me think it will be impossible to improve or change the current system without breaking everything they have already finished. Which creates a "So why bother?" mindset.

I feel like Larian buries their head into the ground like an ostrich whenever it comes to this issue. It really saddens me hearing about Swen promising an expanded dialogue system in the beginning with some off-hand comment during a live stream, but nothing has been said or seen ever since.

Yet the issue is brought up often enough, just not on the level I have attempted to highlight it within this thread. It's usually a short comment on wishing we could change characters during dialogue, but never really expressing how anti-party the whole dialogue system is to begin with. Especially for multiplayer co-op play.

It is truly infuriating you can not step up the party Wizard when there's an Arcana check to be made, and whatever 8 Int Barbarian will roll instead.

Perhaps they painted themselves into a corner with such a heavy focus on cinematics and voiced dialogue. Getting Gale to walk over from the back row, speak appropriately and examine something Arcane could be too much work, considering you would have to do it for all characters in all situations.

Then again this is just something they have to solve. It's a party based game and it's absolutely inexcusable to not allow different party members to use their specialized skills for the group. That's the very core of the game, in and out of combat. If it calls for a reduction in cinematic quality, so be it.

Welcome to the forums Kappa Omicron (and cool pseudo by the way).

A couple of quick points.

The specific issue of not being able to act as a party during conversation has been reported many times. Although it probably took a back seat to other topics (e.g. Reactions) since the release of Patch 8, a couple of weeks ago. And now that I think of it, I may have seen this pop up on Reddit more frequently than here. But in short, no, you're certainly not alone in caring about conversations. And more generally, you are not alone in feeling that the game fails to deliver on the "party-based RPG" aspect, on so many occasions.

I'll briefly add a couple of points regarding the multiplayer experience.

• When your friend starts a conversation (and thus a cutscene), you have to actively opt in to experience it as well. Instead of having to opt out if you don't want to see it. In my view, that's clearly the wrong default setting. I can think of few cooperative games where I have to ask the game "yes please, show me the story as well, I'm not here just for combat and shenanigans".
  
  On top of that, you have to be quick to opt in, otherwise you miss out the beginning of the cutscene. Not really appropriate in a turn-based game.
  
  
• When your friend selects a dialogue option in a conversation, you do not see what they selected. You have to either ask your friend constantly "so what did you say" (not an authentic tabletop or coop feel), or overlay the dialogue history (and miss out on the graphics).

Your point about not being able to use a party member's skills (e.g. Guidance) if they are controlled by another player is a good one though (and new to me, as I didn't playtest multiplayer since the so-called "Active Roll UI" was introduced in Patch 5).

+1 to the OP

I did not play multiplayer myself.

Strong +1 to basically everything OP said. You should be able to swap who is speaking, choose who is the default Face of the party, and/or make use of other party members' skills for dialogue checks.
Yes. Urghghhhhh. This is the worst aspect of BG3 dialogue to me, because of how severely it affects multiplayer gameplay. Seriously, I have to manually opt in to every dialogue my friend(s) start, AND I'll likely miss the first sentence of dialogue, AND I can't see what my friend chooses??!!!? In order to know, the friend has to
a.) Read aloud what option they choose before picking it, or
b.) Hover over it for long enough--like multiple seconds--that other viewers can read it and identify it as the one being picked, instead of just being hovered over briefly while being considered.

Larian has clearly indicated that multiplayer is the big focus in BG3 and that certain things can't be done because of how they would(n't) work in multiplayer. And yet, we have this absolute travesty of a dialogue system in multiplayer??? Like, c'mon.

+1
DOS2.75 in D&D clothing. Thats why it sucks.
As Ive been saying and beating the long dead monkey for over 2 years, the overuse of cinematic dialogues everywhere is the BANE of this game. We could of had so much more D&D content, detailed dynamic environments and interesting dynamic dialogue gameplay instead.
Larian went for a pretty Telltale DOS game.

Yeah, I'm starting to think they tried to implement but realized it's another victim of their engine.

I do remember him promising that. And he never mentioned it again.

Wouldn't surprise me if it's a broken promise on release because that is something you wouldn't hold back to put in EA.

Firstly, thank you all for the comments and support. It makes me feel much better to see many people in the community who feels the same way in regards to how the current dialogue system is not very good for a party-based game. Especially when in D&D, as a party, we rely on each other for our various skills and expertise.


Thank you for the welcome and kind words.

In regards to the issue you brought up with having to constantly opt in to the dialogue in multiplayer when another player initiates a conversation with an NPC, I was actually planning on starting another thread at some point on that. It's an issue that's been the bane of even Divinity Original Sin 2, which I was really hoping Larian would have changed for Baldur's gate 3.

After experiencing playing co-op with a friend recently, I was actually happy to see that they did fix one of the issues that I remember being in DOS2, and that was the voice acting would not play the first line when clicking into the dialogue of another player. In BG3, whenever I clicked into dialogue when my friend was in one, the cutscene would play like normal with full voice acting, but sometimes would skip ahead when the next scene played for player who initiated the dialogue.

Something I found myself wishing I could do while playing through the game for the first time with a friend was being able to "link" my player character onto my friend's character just like we can do with the companions so they follow us.

Being someone who has played through many parts of the EA dozens of times, I grew a little weary of having to follow my friend around manually everywhere when we were, say, just at the Druid's Grove and talking to all of the dozens of NPCs all over the place, and me having to click into the dialogue every time. The shorter dialogue with 90% of the NPCs where they just say one or two lines were never worth clicking into, because the cutscene would end before I could even see it fully due to it ending for the player who started it.

My thoughts are if we had the ability to attach our characters to another player character, our characters would auto-follow that player around, and automatically be put into any dialogue he initiates or is drawn into without us having to do anything. Just like what happens with the NPC companions we already have.

If we were able to do something like that, that way we could clearly define who our "player face" of the party is. While attached to the party leader, our characters would just auto-follow just like the AI companions already do, but when combat starts, we have full control of our characters. Whenever we want to split up, we could just detach ourselves and then go along our merry way.


I wish Larian would be a little more transparent with us and just tell us if they are still working on improving the dialogue system or not, and why. If it's a technical issue or limitation with the engine, then just let us know. Isn't that what Early Access is for in the first place? For us to be able to help suggest things and give feedback?

The community definitely has been helping out and working together with Larian, but then there are these topics that just get completely ignored with no word or input from Larian. Despite putting great emphasis on their development structure of asking feedback from fans and working together during early access to make the game the best it can be.

The topic of this discussion seems popular and highlighted (to a point) enough for them to have taken notice. If they could just confirm they are still working on improving the dialogue system to be more party-centric so we can all use our skills to help the group, then that would be fine.

Or if they could just confirm that they are no longer working on improving the dialogue system, then let us know so we can give more useful feedback in other areas or alternatives.

It's just not a good feeling when a certain type of feedback, that has been quite consistently said since the beginning and echoed from many, yet 8 patches later, there is no acknowledgement or word on whether it is being seen or treated as an issue.

Will I be upset if Larian confirms the dialogue system isn't going to be improved in a way that lets us work together as a party using skills during dialogue? Of course, it's supposed to be a party-based game.

But at least I'll know not to waste my time giving feedback in an area that Larian has no intention on ever changing.

I apologise if I may have come across a little prickly in some areas, I genuinely do not mean any ill-will or anything of the like. I'm just quite passionate about party-based games and working together, and I really do love everything I've seen and experienced so far in Baldur's Gate 3. I just feel that the current dialogue system is holding the game back a lot and is working against many features in the game. Especially for those who plan to co-op a full party together.

Every Patch seems to have to have some big thing added onto the game, such as a new class or race, but will there ever be a patch that just completely overhauls the dialogue? Or is that too lacklastre and wouldn't develop enough hype for more sales like the latter would?

Personally I favour single protagonist dialogues, especially for BG game. I thought the triumph of BG1&2 was to create protagonist lead D&D adaptation and I have been a fan of the formula ever since. I think it’s nice when companions contribute to the checks (like in PoE2) but I want my choices and results to be mostly determined by the character I created to reinforce my roleplaying choices and vary up playthroughs.

That said, with how much importance BG puts on origins, mechanically and narratively, and with Larian’s focus on coop play since D:OS I am surprised they keep the system as strictly single-character affair. The only games I can think of that attempted to do a coop dialogue was Old Republic and D:OS1, neither of which did it very successfully IMO.

Larian already removed any attempts at coop dialogue for D:OS2 and BG3 follows the same vein, while at the same time not being a single-protagonist title. Odd.

Party dialogue and skill checks can exist even if the PC is the leader who has final say in decisions. So you could very well have the best of both worlds. Your story, influenced by your companions.

I find it appealing if not all options are avaible to me. I feel it helps roleplaying if I need to make decisions through what my character can do rather then being able to pass each check that I choose - to be RPGs are half about making active choices, and half about watching consequences of those choice (including the character I made and his flaws).

Perhaps, I just had poor experience with team based RPGs, but the ones I played I always feel it ends up being about composing the party that will pass every skillcheck rather being a reactivity to our character(s). If that is a case, I don't really see a point of skill checks to begin with. I suppose it can work in coop play, as at least it is not I who can do the task, but I always approach RPGs a single player experience first.

Well, one of the very principles of a party-based RPG is, precisely, to build a party with a reasonable range of skills, so that they can face a reasonable range of challenges. Part of the point (especially in a single-player, video game context) is in composing your party, then venturing forth in the world and seeing if the assembled roster works.

You won't pass every skill check. At best, you might have a tool for every situation (e.g. a companion with the appropriate Skill Proficiency), so you may have better odds. But success is not guaranteed.

Also, for me, it helps with roleplaying and immersion if I can have scenes that make sense.

• When walking in the swamp, if I have Lae'zel in front and the GM (i.e. the game) calls for an Ability Check (only one roll, from only one character, just because) to see if the group spots something, I'd like to choose my Druid or Gale for that roll. I don't like being told by the GM/game :
  "Actually, you have roll with Lae'zel because she's in front. Yes, yes, I know, I would ask everyone to roll a Perception check to spot an ambush in the Blighted Village, because everyone cares about their skin, so it makes sense. And, yes, I would ask everyone to roll for Religion if you passed by a statue in a temple, because everyone has eyes and knowledge, and a tongue to share that knowlege, so it makes sense. But this is different. Completely different. Nothing in common. You are now in a cutscene. What is that, you ask ? Nevermind. But it means I can really have only one of you roll the dice. And you can't even choose who that character is. Well, you can, but for this you'd have to reload the game and use fore-knowledge. So just assume that everyone now doesn't care about their skin and trust the person in front to spot every danger."
  
  
• When walking into Kagha's first conversation with my PC, and hearing Wyll tell me "please, you have to do something for that child", I can't help thinking, "yeah, it would be great if I had someone in the party that I took with me mostly because he's good at Persuasion. Too bad I don't have someone like this in my party my PC isn't my party's Face".

I just want to draw the distinction between two concepts, that are certainly connected, yet very different. On the one hand, you have the number of adventurers : is it a Party of adventurers/companions, or a Solo adventurer ? On the other hand, you have the number of players : is is Single-Player or Multi-Player ?

I feel (perhaps wrongly, you tell me), that in the first part of your post you are saying that you're not fond of a Party-based RPG (with a party that can have multiple skills, instead of a Solo adventurer who would make do with what they themselves are good or bad at). Whereas in the second part you sort of say that you prefer Single-Player RPG.

I personally enjoy how Pathfinder: Kingmaker/Wrath of the Righteous handles skill checks during their dialogue. While companions are part of your active party, their relevant skills are used for rolling skill checks if you pick an option where their skills are better than your own.

So when there is a history check option, when you hover your mouse over that specific item, the game's tooltip will tell you which character will be making that roll. If you have a companion with a higher skill in history than your own in your party, their skill will be used for the roll. If they are not in your active party, or your own skill is higher than anyone in your active party, your character's skills will be used in the roll.

I believe that system can still be used in Baldur's Gate 3 and work. If it's too much to add extra cutscenes where a companion will cut in and make certain rolls for you during dialogues, then the alternative can be to just simply have their skills be used instead of yours for the roll, and use the same cutscene as if your character would have done it with their own skill.

That way, it would feel like the party is actually working together. We don't need every single cutscene to be so reactive and to be different just because you used another character to make a roll for a dialogue choice for you.

Would it be nice to see Astarion cut in during a dialogue with a sleight of hand check and pickpocket the NPC in the cutscene? Yes, it would be pretty cool, but we wouldn't be losing much from having the normal cutscene of our character doing the pickpocketing using Astarion's skill. Would it look strange seeing your character not capable of pickpocketing pick a pocket? Yes, but I think that cosmetic issue is a far lesser issue of having a dialogue system that does not mix well with a party-based RPG.

There are also moments in Divinity Original Sin 2 where some companions would actually interrupt your dialogue with certain NPCs that were a part of their origin quest. You could allow them to talk to the NPC instead of your character to help advance their personal questline.

Edit:


I agree with everything said here, 100%. It highlights issues with the current dialogue system to a T, and I couldn't have said it better.

Yes, sorry if I am being convoluted. I was attempting to state my personal preference for party RPGs with singular protagonist (PoE1&2, most of Bioware catalog), while at the same time trying to acknowledge benefits that BG3 could gain from doing things way OP suggests.

Oh, nevermind. But also, this adds a third distinction to the list.

In the case where it's a Party (not a Solo adventurer), there is the question of the number of protagonists : is it a Single Protagonist with sidekicks (e.g. the company of adventurers is "Gorion's Ward and companions"), or is it a Party Of Equals (e.g. "The Avengers") ?

I have my preference for Party-based RPG, Single-Player, and ... I'd say my preference for the number of protagonists, at least what I'd wish to find in BG3 given how the game was advertised, but I have no idea what Larian is actually planning to go for on this, and that would also be going off-topic a bit too much. Since the topic was on the number of adventurers and how the game fails are delivering on the Party aspect.


@Kappa Omicron : thanks.