Originally Posted by Sozz
If you had played one of the origin characters first in DOS 2 you might feel differently. Playing again with your 'generic' character, you'd see all the places where your character was left out, or contributed in a less meaningful way to the story. As I suspect people might feel if they play Tav the second time.

You've got to see the difference between a game like Arcanum or Dragon Age, and Icewind Dale or Solasta; one has a story about your character, and thematically linked to your companions, and the other just occurs to a party of characters who contribute nothing to the story apart from determining if it happens or not. The story of BG3 looks like its going to be about the origin characters, but it only 'happens' to Tav.

Except the only game on that list I haven't played is Arcanum? The origin stories in DOS 2 were side missions to the main game, which was my character's story. The only thing I'd be missing are the companions that don't follow you onto the ship, and I'd be missing them either way. Since it's possible to get the "real" ending to the game, no matter what character you play, whether or not the comps can be the main character doesn't matter. The only thing that changes are the side quests you have available, since they're dependent on who you bring with you. While the Red Prince's story is very important to him, if you don't bring him on the ship, the game plays out the same way, minus his side content. The same applies to all of them. That was my biggest complaint about DOS 2, and something that I absolutely hope doesn't get repeated here.

Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by robertthebard
However, the "the story is the main character's story" happens in every RPG, except for, off the top of my head, both IWD games, because there we made the whole party.
Let me try again.

The problem is that in BG3 it is not your main character's story, and yet the game plays as if it were. If you change written character dynamics in your games, but not adjust gameplay dynamics than issues appear that haven't been there before.

In BG1&2 the game's story is YOUR story, you are the protagonist and all companions act as SIDE characters to your story. BG3 is different and acts as an ensamble cast - but relations between player and companions aren't the designed for the purpose of the singleplayer. That something works in one title, doesn't automatically work for a different titles if core mechanics of the narrative have been changed.

Like chain mechanics works fine in KOTOR or later Bioware RPGs, when party management during exploration is non-existent and game is from third-person view so companions can be sneakily teleported over whenever they get lost without drawing attention to itself. It works much worse, if the game expects regular and precise party control, and when top down view makes it obvious when your dumb followers get confused by ladders and jumps. Not a problem in other titles, but a unique problem in Larian games

D:OS2 shares a lot of issues with BG3, as in broad strokes it is more or less the same game. I definitely DID have issues with D:OS2, specifically with origin system, but this particular issue is less prominent as companions are lesser. They have very little narrative presenceand for the most part act as mercenaries with occasional story bits. I was never under an impression that any of my companions in D:OS2 had strong opinions about anything - they were there, had things they wanted to do, but for example none of them strongly campaigned for a particular way to leave the opening prison island.

As I said earlier, if companions in BG3 were written just a bit less forcefully, or narative found some excuse for them to turn to Tav and say: "We can't agree or anything. Those are the options, you decide and for the greater good we will fall in line, even if we will hate your guts if you won't choose our option". BG3 could address it narrative dissonance in many different subtle ways, they just can't be asked to (at least based on what we have access to).

No one asked here to gut companions or rewrite them. Just to make Tav vs companions dynamic a less jarring. Sure, gameplay will demand cetrain contrivances. It is your writers job to make those contrivances feel natural and ideally an extension of the story and themes.

BG 3 absolutely is your main character's story. It doesn't matter if it's Tav, or Shadowheart, whomever is the main character owns the main campaign as their story. Again, how much of the story and consequence do you expect to get in Act 1? As to why they'd follow you, I've already listed off some reasons why they might. I picked up on them straight away, playing the game. How do people that continue to go on about how "bad" the narrative is miss them? Maybe they do so because they missed them?

1. Before you could rescue Shadowheart from her pod, did you at least try to? That might be a reason she'd follow you, wouldn't it? Now that it's possible, if you rescue her, that would be a reason why she might.

2. Did you rescue Lae'zel from the Tieflings? That might be a reason she'd follow you, don't you think?

3. Did you win the wrestling match with Astarion? Even if you lost, what stops him from killing you? The tadpole.

4. Speaking of the tadpole, I've been told that it's narratively insignificant, or isn't sufficient reason for them to follow you. Given the examples cited here, and considering the life and death nature of what's going on, according to everything the characters know at the time, how is self preservation not a sufficient reason to agree to follow whomever the main character is.