Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Playersexuality discussion and its effects on Companion writing

I guess one response would be that playersexuality is precisely what allows you to build your own personal narrative with more freedom, whether queer or otherwise, rather than the game designers forcing all players to accept the boundaries they decided to include.

Yes, we don't get to say "the game developers presented a specifically queer narrative" in that respect (although, for the record, BG3 already has several in-universe gay or lesbian relationships among various NPCs, so it's pretty queer per se! I think that's good). Roleplaying with this system is meant to be very open-ended, so you can't determine much of that without the player's input.

However, you can say "my personal BG3 narrative was very queer" due to the decisions you made, thanks to the character creator combined with playersexuality. We can do this even with characters that, in another reality without playersexuality, might not be available as options for a queer romance (or, of course, vice versa).

I'm in favor of companions having set sexualities and possibly even race/class/etc preferences. I feel that it can (if done well, and not stereotypically) add characterization to companions, making them feel more real. Additionally, it allows for backstories and companion quests that might relate specifically to their sexuality and thus resonate with certain players: e.g., Dorian's backstory and relation to his father in DAI. See @urktheturtle's point above re: telling queer narratives.

However, BG3's cast of companions is too small. For a decent chunk of the game, there are effectively only 6 companions. (Halsin doesn't count because he doesn't actually join your party until midway through Act 2, and neither does Minthara because she's locked behind the evil route).

I think the tradeoff point, where having set sexualities isn't too limiting on romance options, is at >8 companions. With 4 men and 4 women:
- 1 of each can be straight
- 1 of each can be gay
- 2 of each can be bi
This would allow for any player to romance 6 companions (3 if you refuse to be e.g, in a gay relationship). Maybe 1 or 2 fewer if certain companions have race/religious restrictions, like SH maybe not being willing to romance a cleric of Selune.

Dorian in inquisition is a great example of what you can do if a companion has a set sexuality, his story was a distinctly queer narrative that many peopel can empathize with that actually was connected to worldbuilding and lore.

However, that doesnt mean player sexuality characters are wrong... its just different.

I don't know where you got that idea... My idea of fun is to have a relationship with any of the characters with any gender/build.

The Pathfinder games are some of the worst examples you could have used, there isn't a single lesbian romance option option in both games, all female characters are either straight or bi, and there is only one gay man in Wrath, zero in Kingmaker, that's one homosexual in two games, I'm fine with companions having a specific sexual orientation but not if they all end up straight or bi, which is usually what happens, Cyberpunk 2077 or ME3 did it well and I would be fine with that, but it does create some frustration if the number of romance options is very limited.


That's a completely different issue, the romance options being player sexual does not mean that ALL companions must be romance options to begin with, it's completely possible to have both some player sexual companions and some already married/asexual or whatever.

Okay, my moderator hat is now off, but in the interest of trying to moderate this thread fairly, this will be my one and only post on this topic as a forum member. Much as I think it's an interesting, if potentially thorny, one.


Personally, I'm a sucker for an enemies-to-lovers trope, so my first planned character to experience the SH romance is of course a cleric of Selune! I am not in favour of limiting romances by race/class/etc in BG3, though ideally if there is some specific story reason why a companion would have a prejudice against my character, I'd like the opportunity to confront, discuss and overcome that in dialogue. If that's too tricky, I'd rather be able to headcanon how reconciliations came about than just have romances ruled out by the game when chances are they'll be exactly the ones I want. (And yes I did love the potential for rivalmances in DA2 )

More generally, I agree with the folk here who think that playersexuality is the most pragmatic approach to maximising player choice with a limited number of romance options, and for me in a game like BG3 which puts so much focus on player agency and replayability, that seems the right thing to prioritise. In other games, I would possibly agree different choices about companion sexuality could make more sense. But the chances are that I'll play and replay BG3, and so I appreaciate that I'll have lots of flexibility to have different romances for my different PCs. I expect I'll try most of them with PCs of different genders in the end.

I do, though, agree it can be immersion-breaking for everyone to be hitting on our PCs. But I disagree that limiting who we can romance, or indeed defining player sexual preference up front, solves that problem. WotR does have characters with defined sexualities and my PC in my playthrough was bisexual, but it was still really weird when Lann, Daeran and Arushalae all started treating her as though they had something special when she'd only been friendly and reasonably helpful to them. I'm perfectly prepared to just ignore some of that weirdness as the price of giving me and other players choice, but I also think part of the trick of good romance writing in a cRPG is to mitigate it by using various tricks to hide the fact that all characters are romanceable in a specific playthrough, and that applies regardless of whether the game has companions with pre-defined sexual or other preferences.

And as for all companions being playersexual limiting the stories we can tell, I guess I agree with that too. And I also agree that it's not necessary (and in fact would be undesirable) for every game to tell a story in which a companion's sexual orientation is important. And that where there are stories that writers want to tell that can't be done with a playersexual companion, then they still might be able to tell that story or something like it in the game by using non-companion NPCs. Again, I think Larian have made the right choice for BG3 by prioritising flexibility for players to engage in different romances, but I might have a different opinion about a different game.

I always used the term "Herosexual". But Playersexual works too.

And I have no issues with it. As long as the rest of the writing is up to snuff.

If you have Herosexual companions, then yes, the player can romance whoever they want. Which is good. It's choice and freedom. It lets you hook up with whoever you like (or like for the character you're playing) without having to worry about playing something specific just to experience a romance.

On the other hand, if companion orientations were set, you'd be more limited. And if they were to do that, they would expected to have VASTLY better writing for each (which sadly BG3 doesn't have). Where every character is well designed, with a detailed history including past relationships that would be brought up to help give your romance with them (or lack of ability to do so) more depth and meaning.

It would be great to see more detailed writing with character relationships, that you can explore as you get closer to them. But most games just skimp out on that. Which is a shame.

What makes "Playersexual" weird in Baldur's Gate is the sheer volume of player-sexual characters. It doesn't map on to reality properly. You just HAPPEN to encounter 12 different people with vastly different backgrounds, races, and origins, who all are ready and willing to sleep with you totally indiscriminately? Is this how reality really works? Obviously not.

There's also the matter of heterosexual people who don't want to be courted by people of their own sex. This is also a phenomenon that doesn't occur in real life with this sort of abundance: it's not the case that I go out in to the world and encounter a legion of men propositioning me for sex.

The way playersexuality is implemented is such a wild departure from how real romance works in the real world that it makes people uncomfortable, which should come as no surprise.

There are some people who will love the sex-fest, and there are some who will not. It is, unfortunately, a zero sum game: pleasing one crowd means displeasing the other crowd. This is why the user should have the option to decide for themselves whether they want the hardcore polyamorous pansexual playersexual experience that is currently in the game, or a more conventional "boy-meets-girl" experience. I assure you the number of people who prefer the latter is much greater than you realize.

@dbloom Well said—and should not offend anyone.

After reading these boards, as well as other forums, I won’t be purchasing this game. I am a little sad because I have played D&D, then AD&D, then numerous CRPGs over the span of 40+ years. I was really looking forward to a return to Baldur’s Gate.

Oh well, for those who revel in this sort of thing, ENJOY!

Peace out.

Hem

Except you're never forced to be in a relationship with anyone except the person you choose to be. So it's not an issue.
It's not like you're forced to have a relationship with every companion. In fact you actively have to select specific things to be able to get into one. If you don't want to romance a person, then don't. Then their sexuality is irrelevant.

I agree with that. Playersexuality doesn't automatically mean the player has to accept all possible options.

Outside of stuff like conversation bugs or, of course, temporary misunderstandings (which can also happen in real life, ironically enough)...nothing in the game forces you to pursue any romance with someone that you're not interested in.

If you've made a mistake or if the dialogue wasn't clear, then you can usually say "no" and simply put a stop to any further progress with that person.

Playersexuality can be played completely straight or completely queer, or somewhere in between. It's all open to preference and up to the player's choice.

All you would get in this scenario is "I wish the male hetero companion was more this" and "I wish the female bi companion was more that".

I agree with the posters who have said the writing is the problem rather than the sexuality per se. A companion gives you the glad eye and you say "yay" - you can then take it as far as you want or the game will allow. If you say "nay" then that is the end of it.

Or you could all just go and play the Sims. I wonder if there are people in Sims fora bemoaning the lack of sneak attacks.

I'm kinda glad someone brought this up because Dorian is an interesting example to me. Someone else mentioned it and it's an ought/is situation again, and neither one nor the other is "right" and both are valid wants, but Dorian's questline was in large part about the fact that he was gay and his father didn't want a gay son. I see the benefits of showing queer narrative, but so much of queer narrative in media is queer pain. I know what it's like to have family reject you, and while I'm not against games depicting it, and I'm not against Dorian, Dorian was *the* gay option. And? Even so, when the game released people modded him to be romanceable with women anyway, adding a whole 'nother layer onto the thing.

So often gay people exist to be gay in narratives. What is a straight-person narrative? Straight people are allowed to be anything, do anything, want anything. None of their stories are defined by what body type they love. They are just allowed to exist and have a personality outside of that. Queer people aren't allowed to just exist independently of queerness. We have to always have a point, a reason for being there, and we have to be there in "realistic" numbers.

The player-sexual nature of characters in baulder's gate 3 does not prevent sexuality from being able to be a part of a character's narrative. If anyone has played or romanced Astarion you know this. His whole deal is a cope. He if you romance him this is a big part of your relationship. For instance, if you are with Astarion and try to initiate something between the two of you and the druid, Astairion But most people just see Astarion as the bluster he is in the beginning of the game, and call him creepy and pushy when there are very clear and firm ways to tell him to 'stfu' in game.


You are *never* forced into a relationship with anyone in this game, any time you are can be explained away with bugs or not having clear dialogue options, which has been discussed and discussed and discussed. You don't "fall in" to intimacy scenes with anyone in this game though, any flirty is textual and only Lae'zel is anything approaching obscene about it.

But what purpose does this conversation serve exactly? We've already addressed a few times that the chances of Larian listening and changing the characters to not be player-sexual is slim-to-none to occur. If it's that big of a deal for people, I would recommend petitioning a modding forum, or something of that nature, and getting yourself a mod to make the game how you think it should be.

I'd say the point of this conversation is for those who have an opinion on this subject to get it off their chests, given it keeps popping up in other places.

I'm about to log off for the night, so I'll just ask one more thing before I go. To help prevent us going round in circles which will be frustrating for everyone, can people please speak for themselves and avoid making general claims about what other people elsewhere want or feel? What people on these forums feel about the issue on balance will be clear from reading this thread in any case. I guess if someone has some actual evidence to support claims about how many BG3 players in general want what then at least there'd be a sound basis for that discussion, though it's still a different question from what any of us here personally want Larian to do.

My thoughts on player sexuality in general:

I think it's lazy writing designed to only cater to the people who want to be able to romance everyone regardless of what character they make. I can sort of sympathize with how it came about which is this: Players want to have agency with their characters on what they can do, to include what sexuality they want to have. Therefore, some game studies have concluded that to allow for players to have their agency, they need to have every character open to them. I think this is an illogical and harmful conclusion to reach. A character's sexuality is an integral part of who they are, and knowing what sexuality they have while writing their dialogue options is required for appropriate dialog options. If every character in the game is player sexual, it essentially means every character in the game is bisexual, and their dialogue options have to be bisexual. This becomes very bland and very boring to have every character behave the same way in that regard. It becomes very immersion breaking in fact when you're playing a fantasy game with a huge variety of creatures and locations and classes, but then everyone's sexuality is the exact same copy and paste?

My thoughts on player sexuality in BG3:

BG3 took an already bad idea with player sexuality and decided to also make it far worse by making most if not all of the characters also very horny. Getting laid by pretty much whoever you want on the 2nd night after meeting them is a very strange story arc in an otherwise very well done epic RPG. What's even more confusing to me is that Larian obviously knows how to make a good role playing game. They understand that players like to have progress towards a final end goal, will smaller milestones along the way. The fact that they take this knowledge of how to make a good RPG and just toss it in the trash for their "romance" portion is confusing at best. Winning over the character of your choice in a playthrough should be a long winded affair, it should have little milestones you accomplish to connect to the character, and if you do well, you will eventually be with the person you "love". Having an entire cast of horny bisexuals is incredibly bland and boring.

My recommendations to fix the romance in BG3:

First, go to the drawing board for every NPC and decide what their sexuality will be. Rework their romance stories to incorporate their individual sexuality. Just because a player wants to be a horny bisexual, does not mean they get to force every NPC to also be one. In addition to giving them gender based sexuality, also think about race based sexuality as race in a fantasy game is far more dramatic than just shade of brown. Also think about religious based sexuality and maybe class based. I'll give a couple of examples on how this could work.

Gale: only attacted to female characters; only attracted to human, elf, half-elf; only attracted to characters with at least 1 level in arcane casting class. Gale is essentially still in love with Mystra, and therefore pulling him away from that love is a massive undertaking if the player wants to accomplish it. The only characters who have a chance are females with some near resemblance to the goddess and can use magic themselves. The teaching of magic that is really just sex is replaced with actual teaching of magic with no sex. Gale will offer to, and teach your character unique spells that can only be gained from Gale. Every time your character unlocks the ability to cast the next level of arcane spells, it will unlock another offer from Gale to teach you the unique spell for that level. Eventually, if you build enough friendship with Gale, and learn enough spells from him, you can enter a romantic relationship with the mage.

Astarion: attracted to both make and female characters; attracted to any race; attracted to all classes except those with divinity channels (he doesn't trust those that can turn). Astarion is your typical long-lived hedonist. He has seen far too much pain and suffering in his life and is willing to accept any break to that pain, to include breaks via sexual encounters. However, he has learned about the power that divine classes have over the undead and refuses to risk making himself vulnerable to anyone with that power. Astarion is one of the easiest and earliest characters to romance, however he will never become a character you can form a permanent bond with. Only temporary trists in the sack.

If NPCs get their own unique sexuality, then learning how to win them over becomes an actual challenge and goal. Figuring out how to be with every NPC becomes an epic quest in and of itself for the players rather than just a throwaway task that anyone can do.

Why though? Why is the straight guy able to be in a long-term thing, but the bisexual guy written to be unable to get past his trauma? In the end, sleeping with the character is not the goal. Romancing the character is. A conquest is not romance, and calling Astarion a romance option and then only allowing the player to sleep with him is convoluted, not to mention playing into bad stereotypes about bisexual people.

People seem to think that the reason people argue for player-sexuality is so they can just sleep with everyone, so I'm just going to say it. I'm asexual. Intimacy is not what I'm looking for in a relationship. It's not why I do romance. And while im not repulsed as some people may be, it's kind of shocking to me that I am handling the supposed 'overt-horniness' of the characters so well, when it seems to be such a problem for a lot of people. which definitely makes me wonder about what peoples' motivations are.

As far as I'm concerned, the way people treat Astarion is indicative. The ideas people who clearly haven't paid attention to his questline get about him is indicative. Astarion's character would have to be completely rewritten for your idea to make sense. In the game as is, you can form a permanent bond with him, only then you start to get into the problem of the game having no really clear defined conclusions with its endings which isn't what this conversation is about.

Also, I only ever hear about why Wyll and Gale are totally straight, and Astarion is definitely not. No one arguing for player-sexuality to end ever discusses what they imagine the sexuality of the women would be, or any of the other men. Why? I've known queer people like Wyll and Gale. Bisexual doesn't mean you've definitely dated both women and men, or even an equal number of each. So Wyll and Gale having dated/mostly talking about women doesn't strike me as odd.

If you feel I'm misconstruing you in any way, let me know. *Have* you romanced Astarion? Did you keep him in your party?

You're misconstruing me in that don't I care at all if my suggestions are used, or think they are balanced. I honestly don't care which sexualities take a long time and which are short etc. I was just coming up with some random suggestions as generic idea starters, not intending to be the final product on either character.

And I agree, I think the entire BG3 experience is a bad stereotype of bisexual people.

Fair enough, but this is not what I said.

I believe there are both down and upsides to playersexuality and the lack of it. I generally trust developers to make a choice that fits their game best. I do expect everyone to be limited roughly equally when it's not in the game, however. At least when the cast is sizeable. There being good and bad sides to either does not mean thoughtfulness of implementation isn't a factor.

Playersexuality in a game such as Bg3, hypothetically:
-- means Devs don't have to design a cast around romance. This works best if you don't want to center their content around a relationship.
-- allows players to decide spontaneously hours into the game.

Bg3 will probably not make the list of top 10 "playersexuality done right" clickbait articles. My issues are mainly that:

1) a system with a core strength of simplicity is made complex through unstable romance pathing.

(The *far* worse half being down to bugs. The other, choices people made without knowing it opens the romance path)

2) not enough options for friendships.

3) like with the prior point, the extra time wasn't harnessed to give every companion a satisfying ending, either. This leads to the question of "but then *why*?"

Not to be unfair to Larian, but I suspect their initial goal was too ambitious. Cut content, unrealized, yet much hinted at endings, the hints are plentiful. That the design errors make the romance system itself seem insufficiently playtested just tops it off.

Ironically, I *am* sceptical that removing the mechanic would not just create a different kind of bad. It's not within my power to say if it would be worse, or better, or even a mixture. It's within my power to say that removing it would solve none of the problems I have with the game. As an individual. As of now I'm not even aware if Larian is satisfied with this end result or not.

To be honest, I regret having stepped into this conversation in the first place and feel like it was a bad idea on my part.

It does strike a nerve just a little too close to home and while I do stand by what I've said, I'm usually pretty fair at eating my feelings, and today I definitely haven't been. That's my bad. And I'm sorry.