Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Party leadership in BG3 (NPC only)

I know there are some players out there who don't enjoy the companions in the game as I do, and it is totally fine.
While I may like the companions and their personality, there is one thing that boggles me in BG3, which is:

Party leadership.
And by this I mean two things:

• There is no competition for party leadership. Our MC's leadership is set by the default. Everyone states to have different important secondary priorities: Laezel - crecshe; Gale - hunt for the artifacts; SH - Baldur's Gate; Wyll - Mizora. They also have one common problem, which is the tadpole. However, there are different potential ways to cure the infection and each overlaps with different companion's priorities. One minute Laezel states the crecshe to be the only cure, next minute she obediently walks the underdark or participates in the low priority quests. Expected behavior is recurring confrontation each time you deviate from the crecshe path, with ever increasing persuasion rolls to keep her in the party. Otherwise this is an immersion breaker.
• MC is the top authority of all to each of the companions. Interactions between the other party members are purely cosmetic (party banter, dialogue interruption). There is no confrontational moments, where one of the party members picks sides with the other over our character. When choosing the way to Moonrise, an expected behavior for SH or Wyll would be to try and seize leadership and insist on the underdark route. Because Mizora is in the underdark. Because there is a chance to find the Dark Justiciars there. If SH confronts you, and Wyll has medium relationship level with you or less - he should join her, because it is the logical thing to do. Why can we banish Gale or Astarion for their nature, while they follow us like puppets on our silly pursuits?

I think Larian overcomplicated things by putting the time pressure on tha party group, which is the whole different topic, but it is one of the reasons why leadership problem comes to the fore.
Do you like the way companions interact with MC and each other, or would you like them to be more self-aware?

I would like more self aware companions, but this is sadly near impossible to achieve in a believeable form without making a extremely linear experience I guess. I mean sometimes they add a timelimit to quests in some rpgs (Kingmaker did this), but it is usually a bit poorly executed. I guess they could make companions complain if you take to long meeting their priorities and have them leave if you havent progressed after x rests. Main problem I guess with this you have no idea of the passage of time. I guess they could add a date system like they did in the OG baldurs gate games. But that would work best with a day night cycle. Plus you don't really travel large distances in the way they shape the world as is.

I think the MC being the guiding factor is pretty much the default for any RPG sadly. And I don't see that changing anytime soon. Players want to feel important in a RPG, not just part of a group as such..

I'd like self-awareness in one particular way:
If party members claim to have something important to do, they shouldn't hang around camp all day doing nothing. It makes them feel like actors backstage, just waiting for their next cue. Companions only have agency when they quit the team (which I respect) but otherwise surrender all personality as soon as they're done talking.

Show, don't tell, Larian. When actions contradict words, characters come accross as liars at best, or artificial game devices (which they are) at worst.

+1 for companions having stronger presences in the party, and Tav being less of the implicit default leader. At the very least, let there be some conversation where the companions (for whatever reason) agree that following Tav is best.

Some companions should more strongly advocate for or disagree with courses of action. E.g., Lae'zel should not want to go to Moonrise/[whatever the middle route is named...shadow lands?]. If Tav attempts to go those routes instead of going to the Gith Creche, she should speak up, and there should be some criteria (approval, charisma skill check, etc) for keeping her around. Otherwise, she departs. Or possibly she just massively disapproves, and if this brings her below a certain cutoff of approval, she leaves.

This would *need* to be foreshadowed in order to be fair. After X long rests and/or when you reach certain locations (e.g., Underdark), Lae'zel should speak up that it's taking too long to reach the Creche, and she demands that you change your priorities. A persuasion check would talk her down, and a failure would result in some disapproval. Indicating that there will be consequences for not respecting Lae'zel's desire to go to the Creche. This should happen twice, with increasing urgency from Lae'zel, in order to properly communicate the strength of her desire.

You want the companions to bitch MORE about everything than they currently do? That's a new one.

It works in most games in my opinion.
Reason it does not work in BG3 is that origin companions tend to have too important/urgent things to do that does not match with "roaming the land and clearly do something else".
Companionship is never really involved yet and everyone have the same goal so no one will stay with him to help a friend / to achieve something bigger / ...

It work pretty well with Gale and Shadowheart for now imo but not so much with Wyll, Astarion and not at all with Lae'zel.