Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Sozz
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Whether Tav is the leader or not, it's Tav, through us, that decides what happens. So, we get our consequences, and the comps decide you're not taking it seriously enough, and leave the party. What then? There's certainly precedent, Khalid and Jaheira will do it if we don't go to Nashkell soon enough. Minsc can attack you for not rescuing Dynaheir soon enough. Sten will attack you in Origins if you're too busy with side quests to tackle the main objective, in order to wrest control of the party from you.

Why does Larian need to justify your character's existence, or explain why you're the one making the decisions for the group? Wouldn't this have the affect of just creating another Origin character, with the only difference being you get to decide what they look like, and what class? Isn't that part of the problem in the first place?
The strictures of logic don't stop in fiction, if all that is required for you to believe your personal character is the main character of the story is that you are the playing him, then you really don't care about the internal logic of the narrative. But to be clear, I don't know how many more ways we can put it, I think maybe you're on it now, our gripes aren't with the existence of the party, or even Tav being leader, it's the inconsistency between the characters, and their behavior to generic Tav.


Originally Posted by pachanj
I could see it being kind of neat if player character death meant rerolling a new character inserted in to the narrative at the same point like playing at a table, but otherwise the ergodic nature of player agency within a videogame negates that possibility. When playing at a table, agency is shared with the whole party; when playing at a computer, agency is entirely in the player's hands, so it is far more practical to have a save system than a reroll system.

I never liked Larian's approach to "origin" characters for the very reason mentioned above: it's not Tav's story, it's not MY story as a player. I really have no agency over the narrative.

Warhammer 40k Darktide does something similar where the story is actually about the NPCs who send you off on missions, and you're just a reject prisoner doing grunt work for them. Doesn't work there very well either.

I know it's been said to death ... but BG2's companions are a platinum standard that have yet to be matched in any game since. We've all been seeking that level of interaction since and it's not there.
I like the idea of switching characters if you die, or chose to write yourself out of the party. I've seen this dynamic in some Rogue-likes and adventure games, where your progress isn't reset, but the character changes if you 'fail'.

Who is the story about then? Which of the Origin characters do you believe has sufficient ties to the story to be the "main character" no matter who you decide to play as? All of them can die. You can wind up in possession of Shadowheart's box. So, none of them seem to be "main character" material. Which RPGs are you playing, or have you played, where the main character was something/someone other than the character you rolled up, or the party, in the case of IWD/Solasta? If we're going to run with logic, which NPC is it that can take all the agency away from the player? What is it that defines "main character" if it's not the character you're playing as? Even in games like the WH example, you're still playing the main character, because if you wait around for the bosses to do the game, you'll be waiting a long time, and since a "main character" is the driving force behind gameplay, I'm left a bit puzzled by who you think that is. Or, I was.

I was until I got to this: "but BG2's companions are a platinum standard that have yet to be matched in any game since", which makes it really clear to me now. This "platinum standard" has not only been met but surpassed. Hell, it's been surpassed in an MMO, let alone in SP RPGs. swtor's companions, in the vanilla game release, are as good or better than BG 2's comps. You can do more with them, and they're at least as reactive to what you do. Sith Warrior can turn a comp to either the light or the dark side, and the contrast between the two variants is mind blowing. Dragon Age Origins has the best companion I've encountered in gaming. His writing is so good that I absolutely despise him as a person. Yet, I find that I love him as a character, because he managed to generate that much animosity from me. KotoR and KotoR 2 had really good companions too. Mass Effect has great companions, over three games. So, when you say "but BG2's companions are a platinum standard that have yet to be matched in any game since", I'm not sure what you mean. Unless it's actually "nobody has written characters that I like more than those", in which case, I get it, it's not like this is an objective thing, people are going to like what they like, and more power to you.

would you change anything about Baldur's Gate 3?