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

As the mods are constantly intervening in other threads about the way sexuality is handled in BG3 once playersexuality is brought up because it apparently derails discussion about the way sexuality is handled in BG3 for some reason, here a thread dedicated to this topic as by their request.

What is playersexuality?
Playersexuality means that all companions will always be attracted to your PC, no matter their race, sex and gender.

Why I think its bad.
It cheapens the companions and makes them, when it comes to their sexuality, an ambiguous limbo. The sexuality of a person does affect his personality and behaviour around others. By leaving this undefined it leaves a gaping hole in the personality of companions and complicates writing their story.


Examples for that are Wyll and Gale. Their backstory already establishes that they are attracted to woman. So depending on the gender of the main character they are either Bi or Hetero. Yet as it ultimately can't be defined to allow for playersexuality it can never be referenced at all. Wyll openly flirts with basically every female companion in the party and when he talks about his past he also hints at his successes with the ladies.
But despite never mentioning anything with other men we still have to believe that he is Bi when playing male characters. If Wyll had a defined sexuality, either Bi or Hetero, all this awkwardness would be avoided and his dialogue and backstory which fit his romance options a lot better.

Another example of playersexuality gone bad is Shadowheart. Her dialogue makes it abundantly clear that she has no love for Githyanki or Selune, at least in Act 1. Yet she has no problem with hooking up with a Githyanki cleric of Selune player character as a consequence of playersexuality.

This commitment to playersexuality also presents another problem as it prevents some storytelling options as you can't have a companion which is not willing to have sex with the player. So no married person who wants to get back to their family or devoted character with among other things a vow of celibacy. And neither can any story reference their sexuality directly.

With such obvious disadvantages, why is Larian using playersexuality? In short time/money.
With playersexuality they did not need to write different dialogue for romanceable and non romanceable player characters (or leave non romanceable PCs with a lot less interactions with the companions as Larian made sex a big part of it). And they can get away with less companions if they want to offer a "romance" choice for every combination.
And they don't have to deal with some thirsting twitter users complaining that they can't have sex with their favorite companion because of not fitting sexuality.

This also leads back into the general impression of horniness and overdone sexuality in BG3. As now everyone is a romance option you also have "romance" dialogue with everyone and them also hitting on you. Especially as Larian seemed to think that having sex with a companion apparently is one of the primary goals when talking to them in the first place and also the reason why there is no general friendship path.

For a much better implementation look at the Pathfinder games (Kingmaker and Wrath).
There companions have determined sexuality, hetero, homo, bi and not interested in romance at all and non of it feels out of place and fits their characters while allowing the story to also reference their sexuality when it makes sense without awkwardly trying to leave it ambiguous.

I like playersexual companions! There are a limited number of companions and having them playersexual provides the most options and content for everyone.

This is more or less a complaint about the contrivances and limitations that are inherent in this genre of videogame.

One might also ask why, in the first act, the ritual to close off the grove, which is stated to be a time sensitive issue in dialogue, will never be completed no matter how long it takes the player to get on with the questline. It's a sacrifice of plausibility and narrative urgency in favor of player agency, a tradeoff.

It isn't realistic that such a diverse group would all happen to be sexually fluid and open-minded, it's a contrivance that favors giving the player the most options, maybe not pulled off with the most grace in this particular game, but I still think player agency was the correct thing to give preference in this case.

Because everything else in the game like spells, monsters, magical weapons and potions is totally realistic correct?

I rather prefer quality content than cheap quantity playersexuality gives.

What is Playersexuality?

Here is a nice definition from Google (cause we all use Google, it's taking over the World People!!): "Playersexual" is a term used for characters in video games or visual novels who are attracted to the player character regardless of gender or other characteristics.

Why I think it's a good thing?

If you are playing an RPG Game, you are also role-playing. If you can role-play as a Barbarian smashing heads and wearing green skin, you can role-play that the heartthrob in your camp is as hetero as you are.

Or they can be as gay as you are as well.

Playersexuality isn't the main reason for bad writing. Most often it is used as a Tool to say 'Well, they made them all Bi now the writing sucks!'. Funny enough, when similar writing sucked and had hetero only...you only hear cricket noise.

The only thing player sexuality does is allow all the players to romance whomever they want. Nothing more than that.

It has no impact on the writing of a character itself. And it can be proven by simply switching said flag from player sexual to whatever orientation you want. If a character is written badly, do you really think turning him Gay or Hetero he gonna become a better character???

Does it take so little to change a player's opinion from Hating a character to loving it?

Let's see now, everyone knows Anomen Delryn from Baldur's Gate 2 right? He is the only romance for a Hetero lady where her male counterpart had: Viconia, Aerie, and Jaheira.



Remember him?

Do you really think that if a mod was installed and turned him gay there would be any change to him?

He still will be a douche. calling Jaheira 'My Lady' one second and then a 'Wench' a second later. He still will rebuke an older paladin (Keldorn) when he gives him advice.

He still will sound pompous and blame everyone under the sun for his sister's death except his own actions.

And that's what player sexuality does. It doesn't add by Magic new dialogue to someone. It doesn't change their main background story.

If someone was to mod Anomen to be romanced by a male Charname, they will remove the flag that block a male Charname from doing so.

But if you want his dialogues to change to fit his now Gay orientation? That has nothing to do with player sexuality and will need a full rewrite. And that has a tie to the writing itself. From his name, his family ties, and his personal Quest.

But player sexuality limit options in characters' backgrounds no?

Again, the writing is limited. Player sexuality doesn't have an effect on that.

And the issue is how the player sees the player's sexuality.

If player sexuality for you is = Everyone is gay now.

You are the one limiting yourself, not the game.

If you believe that the writing is lacking in background and nuances, then the fault is poor writing. Blame that. Not player sexuality.

But X Character in Y Game only Harped about Sleeping with women!

What's the point? Many peoples were known to be married, had children, even grandchildren, and later in life, they came out as Gay.

It is not unheard of.

It just means this X character has never had a relationship with the same sex and if romanced, the player would be their 1st gay experience.

Care to give us an example???

Sure.

Fallout 4, starts you as a married man or woman.

Many didn't like that. Because being married kinda take away from the blank background some like much more.

I didn't let that stop me though.

And romanced the journalist Piper.

B-but she was Married and even had a KID! Won't you think of the Kid????

The way I saw it is that my character was once married. Then she got frozen and years passed her by. Her quest was about finding her baby. Nowhere it said she had to bang every companion and get married again.

If anything the main story seemed more centered around building settlements and taking down bad guys. Who got time for romance when you have bad guys to kill?

But yes, on her journey to the closest town she met Piper by the gate. She even gave her an Interview and was nicknamed 'Blue'. Then they joined forces, and on adventuring they went together.

During their travels, Piper confides in 'Blue' about raising her sister and other things.

Time passed by as they built settlements, added more people to their friend's group and chased bad guys while looking for little Junior.

You know how the story ends right?

They lived happily ever after in a house that had no lock. Every night they had to find a different bed to do Woohoo because Bethesda couldn't be assed to create doors that lock the settlers away. Bunch of Perv!

But that was all forgotten once morning came and did the Lover's Embrace. it's a glow from the Woohoo you had before going to bed.....any bed really. The wasteland doesn't judge when it comes to trying to kill you.

Ew...but what about some Storytelling that can't be told like a Vow of celibacy when everyone is Playersexual?

What about it?

The companions are called a 'Romance Option' for a reason. If you want a Virgin or an eunuch then just don't romance them and go to the nearest Lampost and pretend it never had sex and won't sleep with you.

Believe me, you won't hurt his feeling. He still lights up no matter what you say to it.

But seriously though, peoples choose to do the romance because they want to spice things up in their games.

Everyone is tired of the broody, lone Wolf jackass whose great love is his dog or horse.

And again, this has nothing to do with player sexuality. Believe it or not, but you can have a character who is let's say a Virgin or has a vow of celibacy and be player sexual.

The only thing again player sexuality mean is: ANYONE CAN TRY TO MAKE A PASS AT THE NUN. It doesn't change the fact the NUN IS A VIRGIN AND HAS A VOW OF CELIBACY. If she is written that she never break her Vow and never bedded anyone, and yet at the end of her story she still says 'I LOVE YOU BUT AINT SLEEPING WITH YOU EVER! CAUSE MY BODY BELONG TO JEEBUS!' then yes.....she can still do that and be player sexual.

Do you get it now????

B-but all them dudes hitting one meh, and I just wanna be bros!! it's so awkward!!

Grow up.

Already there are several nasty, inappropriate, and thoughtless angry responses to the OP’s (generally) thoughtful, but imperfect, post. This forum should be for everyone and all should be treated with politeness and respect… or so I keep reading…

Agree with OP. I can't believe how prevalent it has become.

I agree with the OP, I've hated playersexual companions since I first met them in DA 2.

What I'd like to have is an option to toggle off same sex romances (or romances in general) altogether.

I don't care about their sexuality, but the writing and how it is delivered is tasteless and just straight up bad.

There is no character development, they should look at how Mass Effect and Dragon Age did it. This fuckfest of homosexuals wanting to fuck everything feels completely out of place.

I already told gale in act 1 that I don't want to have sex with him. First thing I hear from Gale while traveling through the shadowlands is how fuckable I look in the shadows. Its smut. Porno level writing.

I actually think playersexual companions are a great idea in games like this because it doesn't cut people off from the companions they paid money to be able to romance unless they play a character they don't want to play. At the same time, I can understand the issues with being hit on by characters of the gender you're not interested in.

However, I don't think the solution is a toggle to disable same-sex romance because that only solves the problem for some players and makes it worse for others.

Instead, I think it would work better for NPCs to default as playersexual but for players to have the option to toggle off interest from a particular gender. That way both lesbians and straight men could avoid male characters coming on to them if they wanted to.

I rarely agree so completely with Icelyn, but this is one of those moments. The relatively few number of companions means playersexual is simply the only feasible option. If it wasn't, you'd have a Cyberpunk 2077 situation, with a bunch of dudes getting frustrated because Judy rejected them. That said, and I've said this before, I would love if they actually depicted a real gay relationship in a game, that actually discussed some of the issues real gay people have to deal with. It seems like gay couples in most games are just completely accepted, no issues, not even a mention of "well, it was hard for her family, but they've come around, etc, etc" All the issues that gay people have to deal with are simply glossed over, as if we're living in a perfect fantasy world. Meanwhile racism, violence, all other bad things are completely commonplace. I know WHY they do it, but it'd be nice to see some nuance.


Which nasty comments are you referring to?

edit: nevermind, didn't read the post immediately above yours. Report posts if you think they're inappropriate.

I agree with Icelyn and Boblawblah here - I think with the limited number of companions, playersexual is the best way to deal with it tbh.

Playersexual. Realistic? No. More fun? Yes. That's the whole point of this game: to escape reality and have fun.

I'm another supporter of playersexuality myself.

People come into these games from all sorts of places in life and with their own orientations.

Yes, in real life you don't typically have the luxury to interact with anyone and everyone, but games are supposed to be a fantasy.

That said, you don't necessarily need to follow this approach in every single game, but I'm personally glad they chose to go down that route in this case. It gives all of us more freedom and flexibility as players to customize our own experiences in terms of roleplaying.

I would encourage you to PM me or report specific posts that you think are nasty or inappropriate, explaining why you think they are problematic, as I confess I am not seeing several posts that would fit this bill. In fact, I see one overlong, sometimes overheated post that I've contacted the poster about, but other than that the discussion seems mostly positive.

However, in the same way that I encouraged us not to derail the thread about the dodgy behaviour (either by design or caused by bugs) of the specific BG3 companions that some players have observed, I am going to ask folk to focus here on playersexuality as an approach to offering romance choice in the game. Specific issues with companions not taking no for an answer or treating us as though we are in relationships when we are not and so on can be discussed in one of the two linked topics below, but not here please.

https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=879476&page=1
https://forums.larian.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=879755&page=1

Posts that would fit better in those topics published in this thread will be moved, though I'd appreciate it if you could save me the trouble and post in the right thread to begin with

That I dispute.
Although it depends on what your definition of fun is. If for you fun is having sex with companions then playersexuality is of course an advantage.
But when you want to experience intricate and immersive stories then playersexuality is a disadvantage because of the awkwardness and ambiguity it requires.

Limited resources, time, etc. player sexual is best in these situations. No one wants an Anomen again. If it’s a choice of player sexual vs shallowly written romances just so check marks can be ticked, I would rather have no romances and just leave it up to modders.

When does it end! There are what now over 60 genders identities?


Edit for clarity of source…
https://www.healthline.com/health/different-genders

I'm also going to encourage folk to say their piece and then try not to keep repeating themselves just because others don't agree. This is a topic on which we simply aren't all going to see eye to eye, and in the end are going to have to agree to disagree. It's of course fine to ask follow-up questions on substantive new points raised, to answer if someone asks you a direct question, or to respond if someone has quoted and replied to a point you've made and you think they've misunderstood what you mean. But please recognise when you've made your view clear and help prevent this discussion going round in circles.

And also let's not get into how many different ways gender identity can be characterised. A gaming forum simply isn't the right place to discuss that, and while the fact that sexuality is far from a simple matter is relevant all we need is that general point so let's not get derailed by unnecessary side debates.

I think I might have an entirely different take on the issues with player sexuality among NPCs.

While I generally agree its a good thing, I think that there is ultimately one potential issue with it, and that is the lack of ability to tell queer narratives.

See, when writing stories with LGBT characters you get caught in the is/ought problem pretty easily. Both of these methods have their advantages and disadvantage. In this instance player sexuality represents a form of "ought" stortelling, so we get the disadvantages of chosing ought, which is lack of reprerentation of the queer experience and uniquely queer stories.

Which isnt a bad thing, its just a disadvantage.

(the is/ought problem, if oyu dont know can be summed up as... ought means "what it ought to be" meaning showcasing a more idealized world, and "is" means showing things as they are to tell these stories... neither method is bad, both can tell good stories, they have their advantages and disadantages... nobody is homophobic or ableist for picking one over the other)