Originally Posted by Niara
You know, Robert... I don't think I've ever seen you jump into a thread without doing so seemingly for the sole purpose of being contrary and fractious. What do you get out of it? It's fine if you don't see the problem as being one - but a lot of people do. We're not stupid, we just care about immersion in space, especially in story-driven games.

Your sole comment here boils down to "It's the mechanics, don't question it!" ... which is a valid opinion to have, and which you could have said in a couple of sentences and saved everyone some effort.

We are all aware that the player character is the main character and the driving decision-making force in purely mechanical terms; we are the single player playing the single player game, of course we are. That's the mechanics. That's not the story; that's not the setting; that's not an in-space, in-world reason. It's the out-of-character reason - there is no in-character reason presented, and that's a problem. Having such a reason is important, and good games provide one. BG3 does not... and as I discussed "It hasn't yet!" is not an adequate response; it is past the point where it needs to have done so.

Immersion and consistency in world space matter - and if they don't matter to you, or you've just gotten used to playing games that treat them like they don't matter (in which case, BG3 will be excellent for you, I'm sure...), that's fine - but there are higher calibre games out there that don't do that, and do treat the in-universe story as meaningful and relevant, and any good story-driven rpg should do as much. Most of the ones I've played do.

No, the tadpole is not such a reason; I discussed why it fails to be so above, which you suggested you would address, but didn't. It doesn't serve to justify why everyone with their very important histories and very important personal goals have decided to make those goals second fiddle to the choices that our player character makes, and to designate them, specifically, as the defacto leader of the group. It's a shared danger that serves to keep the party together and justify them travelling and working together as a group, but it doesn't justify making our player character the leader and decison-maker.

Yes, the reason that we are the defacto leader of the group and the others are following our decision-making should be established right away, from the time that others start doing so. That doesn't mean starting at the end and spilling all the beans on everything right away - it means giving a sensible, in-universe reason for an obvious and mundane question (Why are you the one we're all following the lead of?), the lack of which is jarring and immersion-breaking.

I do complain about the mary-sues, though mostly because of the writing, and the way in which our character often exists purely for them to dunk on and to feed them the fall-guy lines that they can respond to, to upsell their own awesomeness... but the complaint here is mainly around such important, established and epic people following our player character and bowing down to their decisions, when none of them have a reason or disposition to do so. That's a problem. The reason to follow our character should put the character at least on reasonably equal footing with the importance of the other characters and their other objectives, and enough above or more urgent enough to make the choice from them of putting those personal objectives on hold and to put their opinions on what we should do secondary to what this other person says we all will do, seem like a reasonably believable and sensible decision. Right now, BG3 does not provide this, and it really should.

Maybe it's just all you remember? I mean, I remember being dragged for pages by you and GM for agreeing with something GM suggested, with a caveat, instead of just yelling "YEAH" at the top of my lungs and grabbing a pitchfork. That does seem to be something that gets people dragged around here, or, perhaps suggesting some things they found that were positive about the game, and having their thread derailed because "squeaky wheel"? This may hurt your feelings, but I didn't come here to join a faction, I came here, when I do, to discuss the game. This may be shocking to you, but it's possible to disagree w/out having to be "contrary or fractious".

My point isn't that it's a mechanic, don't question it, but it's a mechanic, have you been on the forum of almost every cRPG that's ever been made complaining about it, or is this a special case? I notice you ignored my examples, maybe they were too "contrary and fractious" for you to address? To be clear here, as well, the thing that is so important to the narrative that it gets a cutscene every time you meet a new companion isn't a good enough reason for the companions to follow you? From a purely pragmatic standpoint, that seems like a relevant enough reason to me. Do I team up with this stranger that's sharing the same problem I have to find a solution, or continue to fumble around on my own? Maybe it's just a better grasp of subtext, instead of pragmatism?

Then there's the root cause of the resentment of the companions, right? The whole "but they can be the main character" argument? Except that, once you roll Tav, they can't. Additionally, once you pick one of them to be the main character, after release, the rest of them can't. My usual counter to this is that even if they couldn't be the main character, or if Larian completely backpedals on having them selectable as the main character, they'd still have to have stories associated with them to make them interesting, unless you're looking for Skyrim level companions, that simply exist to fill a role and to marry? This is usually met with something along the lines of "but Larian needs to provide backstory for Tav, instead of allowing the player to do it", completely missing the point of a blank slate character. I've said this before, but this is the first time I've ever been to a game forum where the argument is "I want to play the GM's character" instead of "I don't want to play the GM's character".

Why is it that, in Dragon Age Inquisition, Cassandra, Varric and Solas are following your lead at the beginning of the game? You were, a short time ago, a prisoner, suspected of killing the Divine, and yet, all of the decision making is left to you. Cassandra is notorious for being headstrong, and yet, she defers to you. Why? After the destruction of Haven, it's clear why, but up to that point, it's "Main character syndrome". This isn't some Larian construct that needs to be dragged at every oppurtunity, but an established RPG trope. Some games handle it better than others, Mass Effect, for example, since even with nothing else, Shepard outranks them. Even in Inquisition, there's the Mark, but really, at that point you should be an asset, not the leader of the whole faction. Yet, you're the de facto leader. Nothing gets done on the War Table in Haven until you authorize it. You can sway things in Haven, such as how Leliana deals with a traitor in her ranks. Not bad, for someone that was recently in chains, eh?