In my first and so far only post here, back in 2020 I suggested among other things, that we get to switch the character who is talking in a dialogue. I have since found, that this discussion dates back at least to 2016 in DOS 2 and has also made it into the “Early Access gameplay feedback compendium” under “frequent and/or high importance” back in 2020. I will therefore assume that the issue is on Larians radar. Since I haven’t heard any news on the matter (and we have lots of news from the recent event) and the revealed gameplay does not hint at any such changes either, I further assume the release version is not going to have this option.
I feel therefore compelled to write an extensive text to argue, that an introduction to any form of party dialogue, such as choosing who is speaking, is imperative and should be prioritized over most other improvements to the game, even post release and even if such an update would not be save-game compatible for whatever reason.
While we have lots of discussions on adding additional content or rule variants, and those are all perfectly fine to have, the dialogue system is a core mechanic affecting all playstyles and in its current state it comes with a bunch of flaws:
1. Role play:
The game strongly encourages us to role play our player character (PC) similar to a tabletop game. However, forced dialogue such as an NPC surrendering, will frequently address NPC followers and completely exclude the PC from the conversation. This happens most prominently if the PC is shapeshifted or hidden but generally often for “back row”/”ranged” PCs. These forced dialogues are often particularly important for the story and character development and the fact that the NPC has to handle these situations would be bad enough, but the player choosing how the NON-Player character handles this situation…well I think that sentence speaks for itself. There are problems with immersion and frankly I don’t see it align with the design philosophy of any RPG, since we (the players) are not actually playing our player-character in crucial moments of the game but an NPC, who will later meta-project his own deeds on the player-character because the player was forced to play the non-player character.
2. Plot holes and reduced reactivity:
Since NPCs talk only to the character who triggered the conversation and never to anyone else a lot of logical inconsistencies occur. For example: Let’s say the party needs to pass a checkpoint but if a particular race, say a drow, walks up to said checkpoint the party does not have to fight/talk/stealth through, but can merle pass this checkpoint unhindered. If the party consists of 3 drows and a dwarf, but the dwarf triggers the encounter, the 3 other members are ignored. If they pass the checkpoint anyway, since we can switch the characters we play just not enter the conversation with them, they are attacked although they know at that point from a previous encounter, that this is not how that particular faction would respond to drow. Similar things happen with reactivity.
The games reactivity is amazing and depending on our race, class, skills, deeds etc. we can experience many different outcomes in a particular situation. This is, for me, the biggest selling point of BG3 and really sets it apart from other RPGs. However, this feature loses significantly on impact, if only one quarter of the party experiences this reactivity and more so if that quarter is not really the PC since this character is hidden/shapeshifted or simply staying cautiously in the back. If the player does not know that this situation should react to the PC in a particular way, we simply miss out on the biggest strength of the game. If the player knows it, we have a plot hole as described above.
3. Party dynamics and mechanics:
Although in my opinion not nearly as important as the above points, the fact remains that D&D is designed with a somewhat balanced party in mind so that all can contribute to overcome a particular encounter even if that encounter is not combat. With the current system this is impossible and can be a source of frustration if skill checks such as arcana are rolled by the barbarian while the wizard stands nearby, brain-dead listening to a conversation that she can’t influence. Having a diverse group with respect to background/race and class would open up a lot of content if we could experiment whether a particular situation could be handled differently without save scumming and add to the experience. Further adding to this point: walking up to a potentially hostile NPC and talking to them is very dangerous, since the encounter can turn violent. Currently we have the choice of either setting everyone up for combat and talk with the tank or walk up with the mostly squishy face of the party in the hopes of avoiding a confrontation. With a party dialogue mechanic, we could use the full toolset of the party to see if any race/class/skill/spell of any member could help in this situation giving us way more “epic standoff” moments.
Given my assumptions from the beginning I guess that what I’m asking for is expensive to implement, although it escapes me as to why. Due to my listed 3 point I would argue that investing the resources into “fixing” the current dialogue mechanic rather than adding more races/sub-classes/rule-variants etc. post release would be a better investment.
Tldr: Implementing a party dialogue system would fix inconsistencies with story and mechanics and bring huge benefits to everyone regardless of playstyle. It is a core feature one can’t avoid with “self-policing”, choices, playstyles or mods(I think) and should therefore be prioritized, meaning given the resources even if that means cutting other post-release improvements for the time being.
