Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General What Makes Good RPG Writing?

No, no, you've got it.

It's hard to capture what is meant by "mannerisms" because it is clear that all of the companions have different diction, personality, tone, manner of speech (Wyll=boastful, Astarion=dramatic, Lae'zel=aggressive, etc.). I'm not a linguist, but I can tell that the "connective tissue" of their speech is relatively homogeneous relative to some of the more praised games in the genre.

The reason for my point is that it popped into my head when I recruited Merrill in DA2. Up until that point, I had Carver, Varric, and Aveline, and all of them had a very continuous, confident speech pattern that was unbroken and took one from the characters' preambles to the point they were trying to make fairly efficiently (Especially Aveline, while Varric did a bit more tangential dazzling). Then in comes Merrill who rambles, goes on tangents, makes short observations, occasionally stutters, and has a different accent (Welsh I'm pretty sure) from the rest of the team. Very different from everyone prior. I then realized that I never noticed such differences in speech patterns between characters in BG3, but definitely saw it in DAO.

Funnily enough, there's not a lot of accent variation in the game between companions. I get they're going for English Accent=Fantasy Accent thing, but I've lived in England (though raised in the States) and not everyone has the same accent? There's A LOT (like A LOT) of local accents that are specific to different regions and cities. I think Gale (of Waterdeep) should've had a different accent to Astarion (of Baldur's Gate). You're from the UK, so you probably know this better than I do.

I don't have much to say. There's only one "make your own character" game I really disliked this choice for, DA: Inquisition.

Breaking this down:

-- despite of how open it was who you were before, you get shoved into a hard role. You might as well have hatched from an egg a fully fletched Inquisitor. The few [...] lines don't make up for it.
/We have no such role except group leader so far


-- despite everything, the main character feels hollow. A self insert puppet for the player rather than a character.

This arrives part from the prior problem, part from the plastic doll look and uncanny animation, part from being Big Boss and little else.
/The animation not fitting 2/3 characters is a major problem. The backstory and diversity of classes makes it easier to work out your own backstory in Bg3. What will happen once in the city, however...?


-- the villain has negative personality and we're only opposing him for being Evil.

There is no conflict of values or moral ambiguity. It's a guy who was somewhere at the wrong time (protagonist) vs. guy who wasn't at this somewhere (antagonist). Give me my magic powers back! Grrr! I'm evil!
/We were seemingly chosen for a reason and have a motivation of revenge. The true enemy is yet mostly veiled in shadow... still fighting an evil shadow cult

-- the lineup of companions feels incomplete.

Sera and Blackwall should have been replaced with companions that do more. They're near useless in terms of story telling.

Compare to DA II: Aveline, our connection to the guard, Anders who pushes us towards the mages, Fenris who pushes us towards the templars. Varric, who tells the story and Merrill the innocent blood mage. Even Isabella kick-starts the making of Hawke, -- there is no waste! Not even really with either potential sibling. They all shape Hawke and the story.

The only companion in Inquisition this truly applies to is Cassandra, /maybe/ Iron Bull and Vivienne. No, instead, /we/ shape Solas for DA 4! Surprise! Thanks, I hate it?

In parallel to Bg3:
- Lae'Zel pushes us towards removing the Tadpole
- Astarion is flourishing thanks to it (both fair enough)
- Gale explains the lore

- Wyll pushes us towards the goblin camp? He has [spoiler] connections to the story in Bg. Maybe he'll be nudging us towards more smaller plot points
- Shadowheart has the artefact and probable future impact thanks to netherese magic

- Minsk seems just a buddy in revenge
- Karlach is leading us to the hells?

Theory: most companions are plot hooks. There is no overarching value conflict (mages vs templars). I'm concerned some may fall short in shaping the story beyond that.

If Bg3 is invested in resolving each plot point with the absolute as a vague end goal, however, it might not be such a problem. It depends how much of the game is "Absolute this, Absolute that".

There's currently a lot of non Absolute content. We're really just a party of adventurers. This doesn't matter to Gale, Wyll, perhaps not even Minsk and Astarion, though Shadowheart and Lae'Zel are unconvincing until they realize they've been duped. Might as well travel as your early mid life crisis, right? Karlach, I'm not sure. I guess she's a little lost in the world. Might as well adventure when you're on the run.

I'm curious how long Lae'Zel will complain in the full release, hah. Let's just hope our companions aren't merely slightly less optimized Tav dolls who talk.

Yep, Merrill has a Welsh accent, which is slightly odd as iirc the rest of the Dalish have Irish accents. Though perhaps she originally came from a different clan. I can’t recall whether the clan in DA2 was the same one that the Dalish HoF (and Merrill) actually came from. Or perhaps Eve Myles who voices her and is Welsh was cast after the other voices were recorded .


I agree. I have a tin ear for accents, but what I’d broadly class as posh, southern English accents (or what might perhaps be called “Received Pronunciation” English or “Standard Southern British”) seem heavily over-represented, and only a small proportion of English people speak that way (~5% according to the latest estimate given by Wikipedia), let alone British people more generally. Far more variation would be possible even if there’s a desire to have accents only from England stand in for Sword Coast Common. And, as you say, the fact Gale is from a different city feels like a missed opportunity to give him a different accent from Astarion. As far as I know, there’s no Sword Coast equivalent to the British public schools that I believe were historically behind the formation of a generic posh accent for upper classes no matter where they were from!

Shadowheart is also more well spoken than you’d expect from an urchin, but perhaps she had Sharran elocution lessons to help her manipulate nobles. Wyll has a more regional (London?) accent, but it kind of works as it’s also the sort of accent often associated here with posh boys trying to sound more street than they are. Lae’zel … I don’t know, but again not as much of a departure as would be justified by her extra-planar origin. Not that I’d want to change any of the VAs at this stage as they all do a good job, but it does look like we’ll be reliant on Minsc and Jaheira to jazz things up.

Beyond just the companions, I’d have liked the folk from Elturel to have a different accent too, but again most of them sound posh southern. And it’s not as though there aren’t plenty of different accents represented in the area of the Sword Coast in which we find ourselves. Just from memory, I think Nettie has an Irish accent, Benryn trapped in the fire has a Welsh one, Andrick (? Edowin’s disciple) has a Scottish accent, and Aradin a northern English one. I’m not sure whether we’re meant to conclude that anyone with these accents is from further afield.

The goblins, by the way, stretch my limited ability to distinguish accents, but sound a bit Ray Winstone London East End to me, which would be a bit of an odd choice for a mainly rural race, as well as adding to the over-abundance of southern English accents, but perhaps I’m wrong. And perhaps someone else from the UK who has a more discerning ear can help pinpoint things more exactly.

Interesting question.
To be honest Larian in my opinion tends to fall victim to a process I struggle to name -> Their characters tend to explain everything. It's not always the case but it happens very often.

Essentially people, when you talk to them, don't explain everything. They might tell you something and won't always explain what made them do it. If you ask them about the reason they told you something they might come up with a reason on the fly. The kind of reason that will leave you wondering how are they feeling because clearly they didn't say everything. The implicit aspect of human interactions is completely lost in BG3 in my opinion based on pre-Paladin build.

When writing a dialogue sometimes you might be tempted to give a bit more info about the story , the lore or the talking character. And you end up with longer and unnatural dialogues. There are two solutions to this :
1) Shorter sentences but longer dialogue sequences(While this wil create a bit more work when creating dialogue trees we're not talking about branching those dialogues endlessly. On multiple occassions a few choices will lead to the same answer. The point is only to make the communication flow more natural ).
2) "Show don't tell approach". Larian is already doing it quite often with their cinematics so there's that.

Btw Larian's CEO is responsible for this to some extent , Shadowheart got linked to the main quest on his demand together with her artifcat. The objective was to pass the main story in a natural and seemless way. It ended up mixing a side character with the main plot making her essential to act 1 story line . Her artifact could be an awesome way to make a player-made character unique but it's too late for that i guess. Regardless of what you do Shadowheart will be in your vicinity on some occassions due to this artifact being linked to her story line and the artifcat story line being linked to the main character. And there are consequences to this.
All artifact dialogues seem just "glued" on top of the existing plot in a weird way with shadowheart being like " No no, it makes complete sense, let me explain". Which goes completely against what was suposed to be her " secretive nature" .

Gael is the main offender. While this might be a way to demonstate his " scientific" approach to most subjects on various occassions Larian goes over board with this and makes him sound like a tutorial.
Similar issue arises with Astarion on a couple occassions, his sentences are way to long.
Best dialogues i've seen so far came from Auntie tbh.

It might be interesting to point out that Imoen was originally intended to be an integral part of BG1. And was in BG2 in much the same way as Shadowheart appears to be linked in BG3. So, the interactions that you are calling out here are not without precedent.

As far as the exposition of her character's story arc being a bit contrary to her stated personality, it might simply be a function of trying to get enough information out to the player within the confines of Chapter one, whereas it might/would be more organic to play out over several chapters. Just my thoughts.

I’d certainly agree that the handling of the artefact could be better and some of the explanation doesn’t (yet?) make perfect sense, but Shadowheart hasn’t struck me as being massively forthcoming about it. At least until she’s grown to trust the PC or until the box does its thing outside the goblin camp after which it makes sense to me that she’d feel she needed to give some sort of explanation and also might want a second opinion about it once it has a clearer connection to our plight. And even then it feels like there are more questions than answers.

I agree with most of what you've said here. We have a narrator. Let the narrator handle exposition. We have a PC. Let the player character figure things out in an internal dialogue. Then we have companions. Dialogue from companions should serve their characterization, and some of their connection with the world (so some exposition), but they shouldn't be the focal points of exposition. I'd prefer more characterizing dialogue and less expository dialogue (not 0, just less).

Exposition. That's the word i was missing ^^

I was back from a night out, so perhaps the tone is blunt – but it’s melodramatic to claim it’s an ‘attack’, of all things.

And you reckon all of the characters have a reason to act so chill and smug under the circumstances? I’m not going to look up the lines, and I haven’t played the game in months, but a few random scenes that come to mind are Gale’s mellow introduction through the magic portal – ‘I’ve just been hanging around here, you know, and by the way, very pleased to meet you’.

Nice to know the dude still has his manners, even though he’s aware of both an alien-parasite in his brain – and of course the magical equivalent of a nuke somewhere else. Because why not?

Or the part where he’s checking out his doppleganger, and just waxing mellow about the whole thing. Or where he’s calmly telling you all about his ‘addiction’. Perhaps if this was some ‘quirk’ of his, where he’s this spectacularly divorced from the reality of his situation, I might be on board – but then everyone else is similarly nonplussed. The tadpole comes off as a mere inconvenience – as in, less worrying than, say, a sprained thumb, but possibly on the level of a nettle sting, for all the urgency that’s imparted around finding a cure.

It’s a game, and a game must have side quests, but there should still be some frustration imparted for deciding to go off hunting down the hag, for example. Don’t know about you, but I’d be mightily pissed if the leader kept deciding to pursue these exotic errands, given that there’s a potentially short countdown to your horrific death. I’d even think he has some kind of screw loose.

You’d expect all of the characters to have their own individual takes on this – one being outright antagonistic about it, maybe another being passive-aggressive, another being hysterical, and another being brutally logical about the nonsensical nature of it.
You could have all of that, and still have no gamey-repercussions (as in, no penalties), but it would at least make the party seem more self-aware and bring out their characters to some extent.

As it is, they are just the sum of their various gimmicks: Shadowheart with her gimmick ‘device’, Gale with his gimmick ‘timebomb’, Lae'zel with her gimmick ‘creche’. I never brought along Astarion or Wyll, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they have similar anemic plot-shackles.

The writers mostly come off as fearful of not having enough ‘special’ trinkets, events, gods and other excessive baggage attached to their characters and overall story.

If you read the plot synopsis for the originally intended BG3 Black Hound, it has infinitely more intrigue and depth than this Marvel-inspired dross. And the opening just features a mere black hound.

What this really boils down to is that we’re two completely different people in terms of tastes – could not be more different, in fact. That’s fine – I’m very happy with the group of pals I’ve had for decades. And in fact, none of them even play games or read books. But they are repelled by this kind of material in movies of TV. It’s boring.

Side note: I was referring to the ‘The Absolute’ as being childishly named. I can’t say anything about the character, because we’ve gone a whole full act and the writers aren’t confident enough to showcase their ‘big bad’ – it’s all pyrotechnics instead. ‘The Dead Three’ is evocative. ‘Bhaal’ is evocative. I could spend ten more paragraphs elaborating why, but what’s the point? You’d ultimately be baffled by what I’m saying, because we’re not on the same page.

In response to the original post, personally I'm not a fan of the plot at all and I seem to recall someposts and threads covering issues with the plot itself. I can't think of another CRPG I have played where the identity of the arch-enemy (for lack of a better word) is shrouded in mystery. That's not to say a mystery story is inherently a bad thing per se but having played the game for dozens of hours, after a while I simply stopped caring about who or what The Absolute was.

As for the tone of the writing/tone of the game, it feels like a marked contrast to the previous games. Admittedly I haven't played the game in 2 years so perhaps the dialogue has changed but at the time I could only liken the BG3 writing to something along the lines of a Marvel film or the recent Star Wars movies; that kind of winking-at-the-audience, intentionally goofy, comical dialogue that just screams it's a script, rather than any kind of believable dialogue we might relate to. There was also the whole debacle with Shadowheart's box and how it is apparently absolutely integral to the story; I can't think why any writer would write themselves into such a... box?

I kept hoping for a relatable character or companion, something grounded but found myself surrounded for the most part by companions with exceptional backstories and being exposed to exceptional circumstances, locations and adversaries all from the very outset.It rarely felt like the logical progression for a level 1 character I was used to in previous D&D CRPGs. If BG3 was a new IP I probably wouldn't have minded quite so much, but given how much I loved the previous games I was very disappointed at the direction this series has taken. At times it felt like the writers perhaps got a little overexcited with the material and just ran away with it. I can understand the appeal to others but it's not for me personally.

Fundamentally when you have such an explosive introduction and the levels and magical items are handed out like free candy, how do you maintain such a pace over the entirety of the game?

Okay, I don’t think I’m understanding you here as I can’t think of a cRPG where there isn’t some mystery about the identity of the big bad. Okay, sometimes you see them relatively early, but even then you don’t necessarily know their name or what they’re after, or what wider plot they’re involved in (eg Sarevok in BG1). Finding out exactly who the enemy is and what their motivations are is usually a major part of a cRPG plot and while I’d certainly not want every game to be the same, this seems to be a convention that makes sense as it would be boring to have this all out in the open from the start.

I know what you're saying but in BG1 we meet Sarevok very early on and likewise with Jon Irenicus in BG2, so while there is certainly mystery around them our PC is made aware of their existence almost from the outset.

I don't feel one can really draw a parallel with Sarevok or Jon Irenicus and The Absolute right now.

I’ve said this before: I don’t like pissing on game writers. It’s a very easy thing to do, and there’s no such thing as ‘the right way’ to write anything.

But there are clearly two different ‘camps’ of people involved here.

Larian’s core audience, aptly represented by BG3 reddit, is quite rabid about the ‘Larian way’, almost to the point of being a cult. They love Bane, from DOS:2. They love Astarion. And even if they don’t, they love some other – in my opinion – non-enity like Lae'zel.

God can do no wrong, in other words.

And I’ve no problem with the goofy, strange, wacky, ‘out there’ Larian writing – it has its place in the universe they created with DOS. It belongs there. Their writers belong there.

Why don’t they just work on DOS3? Make it a ‘Larian game’.

But they are simply the wrong writers for BG. The distaste, here, could easily have been avoided – but of course, Larian execs naively believe their writers can do no wrong.

I’m sure they’ll make their money back etc. And some really do believe that sales = win.

Based on the comments I’m reading here, that’s not quite the case.

Again, the original BG3 Black Hound sets the ‘right’ tone. Lowkey beginning, almost bland. Unremakable, non-special MC.

BG2 surprised you with its first dragon – I still remember the shock. Didn’t think they could even model something like that after all the simple orcs etc (Firkraag). BG3, of course, lets you know from the start that they’re wheeling out the full circus. And by the way, you’re also in hell!

Ok, ok.

We do live in an age where many people want to be treated as ‘special’, even if they’re plain as a cracker. I work in such a place, I see the effect it has on people who have essentially contributed nothing in terms of output, but are ‘different’, let’s put it diplomatically.

I’m by no means suggesting that BG3’s ‘special’ posse of characters is manufactured to appeal to this particular group – and bear in mind, I’m painting broad strokes: everyone of a particular age wants to be ‘special’, at least where I work. But it does lean into this insipid, shallow fantasy: everything about you is ‘special’ – you’ve a special device or plot. You’ve a special hairstyle or teeth.

You’re special.

Yeah, give me the times when you’re a nobody, fighting to work their up. Just a shcmuck with a crappy ‘wooden staff’ and no armour. For a long, long time. And when you find that first +1 ring, you think you’ve hit pay dirt.
BG3: five minutes in, you’ve met aliens, dragons, imps, hell, demons (am I forgetting anything?) and have a flame sword.

I see what you mean, but I don't really think there's a problem with us having no idea about the Absolute and what it really is. It's a mystery and it's meant to be a mystery. I'm thinking back to Pillars of Eternity; sure you physically SEE Thaos early on, but if I recall correctly, you don't really get any context to know he's significant or the main bad guy until like, act 2. It's not fundamentally different from how we become aware of the Absolute early on but probably aren't going to find out what its deal is until later, most likely at Moonrise tower. I think the real problem is that we lack a conflict to emotionally invest in. The threat of the tadpole really falls flat, since the game does a poor job of selling the threat of it, but at the same time it never really gives us a cathartic moment of releasing the initial threat it set up so we can feel good about exploring further. The narrative still pretends the tadpole is the most important thing when the storytelling and gameplay tell us not to worry about it.

I think that structurally, The Absolute (I actually like the name, by the way. It's firm and to the point, simple in a good way I feel) isn't even meant to be the 'main villain'. Or at least, the absolute ISN'T structurally the main villain whatever the intent of the writers was. It's a mystery to solve, same as the tadpoles. I don't think not having a clear villain is necessary from the beginning, especially since Larian is clearly trying for more of a sandbox approach to encourage exploration. But the story is just unfocused and the parts ultimately don't work together.

And to address your latest post, I would argue that our Tav is very much bland, unremarkable and non-special as an MC. Certainly if you step back and compare them to the rest of the party. Also to bring up your point about the openning being 'Marvel-inspired' I have to disagree with you there. What Larian is doing is writing 101: starting with something especially exciting to ensure you grab the audience's attention. But like everything else Larian does, they cranked it up way too far. Based on what I've seen in the Original Sin games, this is still entirely within their style and to blame Marvel for it is just taking an unnecessary shot.

I think Absolute is mentioned too often and with too big of a focus, while actually not telling anything. For now, it is nothing more than something pulling the strings. Normally a game would engage us in smaller local conflict and present a compelling foil, only to than reveal there is more to it. BG3 screams from the rooftop that Absolute is behind everything, without creating any tangible connection with the Absolute. I don’t care about Absolute (naming characters is important and “Absolute” sounds… weak?) and even worse, I don’t care about characters we encounter in act1 as they are presented as little more than Absolute’s pawns.

I bought the game after seeing the early access trailer, which featured the tadpole plot, so I was interested in that plot from the start! Raphael’s voice actor is also great!


I think the main story is focused unlike sandbox game stories, which I often think are boring. I think Larian did a great job of letting you go where you want but not losing the focus on story. The pacing and story focus remind me of Bioware games such as Dragon Age and Mass Effect, which I think are great!

I also love some of the NPCs, Halsin of course!🐻🐻🐻, and for villains I think Auntie Ethel and Raphael are great.

For me it works well having a mystery unfold as the game progresses and learning more about the Absolute and what is going on with the tadpoles!

While that criticism is fair, Bg3 is currently only in testing. We've been warned that they're withholding enough content that Act 1 will feel fresh for testers.

Like with any other element, I suspect we've only been given a small bite. Wyll? No Mizora. Gale? Very vague. Romances? Enough to get an idea, strange pacing. It's all incomplete enough that we only see an "outline". Much, like the shadowy figures only gave us a literal outline of their profiles.

The datamined content has me feel it'll be similar to DA origins. Big parallel plot lines, optional side quests, but still the big bad end boss. Perhaps, with more attention given to our companion's quests.

Since Act 1 is where we're introduced to the main quest... we're railroaded into seeing the Absolute at work. Goblins? Complete abandoned their prior gods. Druids? Guess they exist. Not too compelling, the focus may be on : 1 the goblins, 2 that the absolute wins over a group by implanting the leaders with tadpoles.

(However, normally sane people may use desperate measures in war (like accepting the shadow druids). A Warning? I guess, Kagha not working for the Absolute is a mild twist)

Aside from that plot line, we really only have optional areas for combat and loot.

We’ll see in the full release, of course, and tastes will vary, but bringing this back to the topic at hand, for me a good mystery is part of good RPG writing, and even if it’s possible to have an RPG without one, I enjoy following clues, uncovering plots, puzzling about the motives and allegiances of folk we meet and theorising about what’s really going on only to have my expectations upended. As well as being engaging in its own right, mysteries have a mechanical benefit as they can include red herrings or periods where the trail goes cold that are an opportunity to explore side plots without feeling we’re taking an unwarranted diversion from an urgent main quest. I don’t particularly want to know what I’m dealing with straight away, and while I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad thing to see the main antagonist early on as long as there are other mysteries to solve about them, knowing who I will be fighting from early in the game is very definitely not something I see as important or even desirable.

Whether BG3 will actually turn out to be a good mystery is up in the air, but for me it’s got lots of intriguing elements and I’m looking forward to finding out how they fit together. It’s act 1 and I would expect to have far more questions than answers at this stage. And I have no issue with the name “the Absolute”, which seems to be a perfectly decent cover name for a (fake?) deity, a shadowy cabal or whatever it turns out to be. It’s possible that Larian will drop the ball and that the plot will turn out to be too obvious or overblown, and that the nature and plans of the Absolute, or whoever the antagonist or antagonists end up being, will turn out to be uninspired, or that the parts that other factions play won’t be interesting, but I’m going to remain optimistic that Larian can pull it off until proved otherwise, and that with the whole game to play with they’ll be able to correct some of the early pacing issues that admittedly affect EA, particularly when it comes to companions.

Exactly this.

Gaunter O'Dimm is a nicely ironic name, for example, for the character he is. Bhaal has menance as a ‘sound’.

The Absolute is like something a six year old kid would come up with, as they’ve developed neither sensory intelligence nor a sense of irony. So just go with the literal option.

It’s simple-minded stuff, and I could only take it seriously – in a ‘pretend’ way – if it was a child who came up with it. But these are adult writers.

The ‘mustache twirly’ side-villians – Minthara, Raphael and co. – likewise seem to be the stuff of children’s fiction. Each theatrically announces their nefariousness from the get-go.

Kefka worked as a good theatrical villian, because he genuinely was a malicious character, mean-spirted and narcissitic and brilliantly repellent.

Anyways, you’re basically banking on the same writers who wrote DOS:2, which likewise had an absence of a proper villian all-throughout. Only at the very last minute did turn up, out of the blue, with no development up to that point. And they expect you to be somehow fired up for his death?

The same pattern is emerging here: hold off revealing the villian as much as possible – in fact, leave it to the final minutes of the game. That way, we don’t have to actually develop them in any meaningful way.

They don’t even need to properly introduce The Absolute in Act One. Even a sidekick villian could work if given the right lines. But there’s no one, really, except a few ‘cult bosses’ who have very few lines or presence or even any relatable motive.

Sarevok and Irenicus presented a real mystery – read: you get a taste for their strange behaviours from the first seconds of the game, and are left wondering throughout the rest of the game. The Absolute just seems like a generic evil god – it literally has its own ‘evil cult’ and so on. Cliché stuff so far. If they want to keep it under wraps for later chapters, that’s perfectly fine, but they’ve done nothing to make it seem anything other than a limp stereotype.

There is some evidence that Raphael is based in the theater district of BG, which I like to think might explain his theatrics. As for Absolute, much like the simple terms found in the nautiloid, Perfection, I've taken it to be a connection between the cult and the Mind-Flayers. Again, that could just be me trying to connect things together. As for Minthara and Nere, apart from being Drow, I'm treating everyone following the Absolute like the Cult of the Eyeless, loons short on logic with high fiber scenery-based diets.