Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Multiplayer Discussion Leaving friend in camp

Can't leave my friend's character in camp when he gone offline
no interaction with his char is possible
will this be fixed?

I really hope they fix this, a couple of my friends are having to restart their main saves because I dropped in on them. It entirely destroys the appeal of any kind of drop-in mode, and makes setting your game to anything but 'private' risky at best. I really hope this isn't "working as intended" given how much it absolutely guts multiplayer functionality.

How do we upvote this? The current mechanics make "drop in" "drop out" multiplayer impossible.

How was something like this missed with over three years in EA? Hopefully it gets fixed soon.

Yeah please fix this. We started MP with three players and want to add a fourth one but if that means our party will be basically locked down then that would be mighty bad as soon as one person wouldn't be able to make it to a session.

I also upvote this. Before, I think I remember in EA where if you didn't start the campaign, you had to play one of the NPC if you joined after. I would be ok with that or with a way to leave the Player Characters in camp when they were offline, and have them accessible via a "hire" menu or something.

I hope it's fixed to at least how it worked in Divinity 2 but I'd rather it be how it was in BG2.

I definitely made some assumptions about how CO-OP works, and I'll admit I have a modicum of experience with CRPGs. I would love for someone at Larian to see this and they make an adjustment to how co-op/multiplayer is handled. If I start a solo game and play, everything is cool. I'm rocking along. I still have the setting on that says "Friends Only." Friend 1 joins into my game. I think (naively) that I could just assign an Origin character to them for that session but I cannot. Friend 1 must make a custom character, or another "Tav." Okay, no problem. They make a custom character and maybe I can give them an Origin character to control later.

I can give them control of another Origin character once they've joined and we can split up who controls what. Great!

We're done for the evening and about to log off, but we can't remove Friend 1's clown-ass-looking-hastily-made-so-we-can-just-spend-a-little-time-together-playing-a-fun-game-bard named Bardtholomew from the party. We can't leave them at camp. Bardtholomew is now permanently part of that branch of the save file. To continue with my group of Tav + 3 Origin Characters I have to reload a previous save file and rerun what Tav and Bardtholomew did. If Friend 1 and I want to play again, I can't just let them pick back up in my save without running into the same problem.

This is a glaring omission for what seems to be a CO-OP encouraging game.

I would like to see a few things:

1. When my friend joins, give me, as host, the option to let them create a character or take an Origin character currently in my party.
2. If my character does create a Tav, please let me leave them at camp like the other Origin characters when they log off.
2a. Worried about where they'll be when not in the party and waiting at camp? Make an outhouse that acts as a stable. You click on the outhouse and the options for which characters are available as Tav's come out when selected and become part of the party. When they're dismissed, they go back in the loo.

Very smart suggestion.

Party lead should ALWAYS have the option to ADD or REMOVE party members.

IMO this is a huge issue and so far the only really serious game breaking problem ive encountered.

It is game-breaking. A black eye on all of Larian'ds hard work.

Worse it's a lack of understanding of a large swath of the player base. D&D IS GROUP PLAY. Its not a solo game. What made the Baldurs Gate franchise SO AMAZING were the great NPCs and the act of forming a PARTY.

We got EVERYTHING practically here EXCEPT quality PARTY PLAY. It's stopping this game from grabbing and holding a LOT OF PEOPLE.

GROUP PLAY needs attention right away.

I really want to stress this too. I was playing EA solo and my friends didn't want to (due to many bad experiences in various other EA games). Now more and more of my friends started playing BG3 since release but we do not play together exactly because of this... due to everyday stressfull life, we do not have the time to always organize a time to play together, so ideally we would want to play a solo campaign and join up if another of my friends has time. but as the system is right now, this breaks your current save game and you need to revert. There is an unofficial workaround, but doing that you never know what else you might ruin in the files along the way.
This is especially frustrating when you encounter such great moments in the game, that you would like to share with friends on your first play through.

So I fully support the suggestions from Skallenia 1 to 1. at least a simple add and throw out option of the friend made char so that the host can easily continue solo for a while, and the friend can join in later again and taking control of his already made Char from before.

a nice to have option would also be (and this was possible I believe in BG2 and NWN) export your char file, so that you could take it to another game and continue his/her path of adventuring in another campaign.

It's worth noting:

This isn't simply some mistake or oversight to be fixed.
This is a result of an intention, and the affect that had on what's worth prioritizing.

You are not meant to have people joining in progress saves for single sessions, and those saves to continue without them.
This is NOT a drop in, drop out, doesn't matter no impact, session based kind of game. It's too story driven for that.
This is a consistent party, for the whole save, always together or not playing that run kind of game.

You aren't supposed to be joining friends, or having friends join solo saves just for a bit then leave while the save continues solo.
You are supposed to have a multiplayer save, a separate one for that particular set of friends, only played when the whole group is playing, doing a co op run of the story where the story is that the characters you chose at the start are a consistent group.
Your friend's characters are not side characters, they are not companion characters. They are main characters, full on protagonists, just like the host. They don't leave the party for the same reason the host's PC doesn't leave the party.
To play in multiplayer is to have multiple PCs, actual protagonist characters, not just to let your friends control your side characters, or a simple stand in (like a hireling would be).
To have someone join a run in progress, is to have a main character arrive late, but they're still a main character.

Well .. where should I start... I fully understand your point of view. Please believe me when I say, that I wish one would have the time in his life to enjoy this game to its full extend and have multiple game stories running (more or less) parallel. a Solo gameplay, a session with one friend, a session with two friends, and a session with the other friend.
It would be great to play this game as you suggest, and that was always the great experience when playing D&D as pen&paper "back in the days". But as it is right now, in my live at least, and perhaps for some other players of BG3, they simply do not have the time or let's say the luxury to endulge in such gameplay.
For an instance, if I where to only play a game session when two of my friends would have time to play... this session would go on for a year perhaps. At the same time I would spoiler my experience with a solo session. But if you are able to play drop-in drop-out you can enjoy the time together with your friends while still managing to progress in the story. each on their own, and also together (depending on how many session each is willing to create).

If that would really be the intention, that you drop in and are a fully integrated part of the story, then how come the friend that joint your session does not get can only give ratings to the options in a dialogue but can not make the decision on what should be answered... simply because he/she is "just" another hireling that runs along in the story.

The NPCs are an integral part of the story, but you are able to leave them in the camp and take Shadowheart instead of Karlach with you... there is no problem... so how come you can not play it like that if you want with your friends?

Again, it is great if you want to and can manage to play the game as you described above, but stating that the intention of the game is meant to be so that once you drop in, you are integral part of game stands in contrast to the fact that you can switch Origin Char in the camp at any time... if that be the intention, there would only be three other Origin chars in the game and you would not be able to switch them in camp.

If you don't want to do it, then don't do it. But don't get out of your way to sabotage a public petition for the OPTION to do it. Nobody will force you to do it if it get's added.

It's a highly requested feature because people really want it. If you ever played a D&D campaing, you would know that players keep getting in and out, and when they are not there, their characters are just resting in the inn, or in the camp, while the actual present people and their characters do the actual adventure and interactions. Nobody is forced to play with the character of a player that is absent.

It's really bad to be 4 people, and needing a save to play 1 & 2 & 3 & 4, a save for 1 & 2 & 3, a save for 1 & 2 & 4, a save for 1 & 3 & 4, etc...

+1 to this thread. Please fix this soon!

It makes no difference how much time you, me, or anyone else has.
The game is what it is, and what it is not, is a drop in - drop out multiplayer game. Trying to treat it that way is up there with adding guns to Skyrim. It's just not what the game is supposed to be.
They didn't just forget to add the function, they chose not to, on purpose.
The kind of multiplayer this game offers, is the "full multi - player character / protagonist group story" kind. If you feel you don't have time for that kind of multiplayer, then you don't play that kind of multiplayer, and treat the game as single player.

You cannot equate leaving npc Shadowheart in camp to leaving a friend's character in camp.
Shadow is just a companion. A secondary character that joined the party you're the leader of.
The friend's character is a primary character. They are not a companion. They are party leader, equal to you. They are stuck in party for the same reason your character is.

To say they are limited to giving ratings in dialogue is entirely untrue. They can do the entire dialogue without you.
The person who does the conversation decides what they say. Frankly, that's narratively the only option for handling dialogue that makes sense.
Though I wouldn't object to some little disagreement system, like how the original Divinity had that rock paper scissors nonsense. [Not to mention the times where you can put the party on different sides and make them fight each other to see who's choice wins in some rpgs.]
But it's also unnecessary, because you players can directly address your disagreement with each other before you click a dialogue choice. It would be rather pointless to put it in the dialogue when you can handle it yourselves. Especially since you can consider the conversation between you players to also be the cannon conversation between your characters, minus the npc awkwardly standing their waiting for you.

-------
When it comes to party size and leaving people in camp, the real thing is:
You shouldn't have to leave anyone in camp in the first place.
Having people wait around camp instead of actually helping, joining the party, is narratively profoundly stupid.
Balancing the game around a team of 4 might make sense from a mechanical perspective, but is too narratively ridiculous to be a justified design decision.
The only version of handling the party that makes any sense is the entire party being present at all times. THAT's what the game should have been balanced for.
And of course the hirelings can fill slots that would have gone to companions a player doesn't have in a given run of the game.

+1 to this thread!
I can understand this situation being feature intended but it would be a shame if it remained so for so many players.
Personally i would love the option of only having one TAV so my play partner can play any of the origin characters because they are so much more interesting narratively to us than the opportunity to have a second 'main' character.
If it turns out this doesnt get changed thats fine i suppose, ill play it the same way i did neverwinter where you can only hire one additional companion per player but i would really love to have 3 origin characters rather than 2 to explore with.
Ive played all the dnd games coop (that had coop) so this really wont be a single player game for me i just dont games like that anymore. Been waiting patiently since bg3 was announced so happy to wait a little longer if this change does end up on the roadmap.

The problem with this system is that if you play as a 4 player coop team, you can NEVER bring any of the Origin companions with you, and therefore you can never finish their quests the way you want to.

Example:

if you cannot bring Shadowheart to
A custom party of 4 should be able to leave one Tav at the camp and then assign Shadowheart to the player whose Tav is currently waiting. It's an easy solution and this feature should frankly be mandatory. In fact, it''s super immersion-breaking to not have this option.

So in a game that doesn't have a locked party, that allows for you to constantly swap out party members and recruit them as part of the stories narrative... should you make the unfortunate mistake of having actual friends to play with... all of this design is broken? wait wait wait, even further, you're not bound to the party members at the start of the campaign, as they can be switched out freely as aforementioned, but... you're not even bound to stay the same class! the only thing you can't change in BG3 is your name, most of your selected appearance, your background... and multiplayer party members lol you're not even stuck to your dice rolls lmao, you can roll two dice, get guidance, and bonuses to influence the roll, the aforementioned NPC that respects the vast majority of any party member to any other class as well as ability points... lets you recruit NPC from outside the story to join your party... that wait for it, wait for it.... can be dissmissed lol