Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General Was BG3 overly sexualized?

I also feel this way. They did this in DOS2, and I went into it blind and got very irritated by both having to make that decision (we couldn't find room for 2 people on this huge boat? really?), and the aborted quests in the later acts that relied on companions that are no longer present. It was poorly done and frustrating, imo. If they had done that again in this game I'm not sure I would have stuck with it.

I also appreciated the inter-party banter, and would even have liked more of it, but I suspect that it was removed due to insecure player feelings, not so that people could create love triangles. Shadowheart (who, I'll remind people, explicitly states she prefers short-term low attachment hookups in the beginning) still makes several flirty comments about other non-player characters in-game, and the reactions from some parts of the fandom about it have been really fucking gross.

To be fair, that's mostly an issue due to the complete non-characterization of Tav/DUrge (Which has been brought up in another, dedicated thread)

Companions are the only ones with an actual story in the game, hence the need to have them around to create somewhat of an interesting narrative.

Add in the whole shallowness of individual companions and you end up with requiring a larger retinue to keep things interesting (Since outside of their few interactions in personal quests, there's not much to each character... Even if this is still much more than exists for Tav...)


Ehh... That's a personal thing honestly and only somewhat exacerbated by their natural classes.

As far as their classes go, there's always the DOS2 approach where when you recruit them they offer a selection of roles. Given each character does have multiple classes that can fit them (Even more so if you simply incorporate their personal traits into additional skills. Like Karlach having a rage-esk ability from using Soul Coins, Wyll having some pact powers, Halsin/Jahera having some Druid spells etc)

Besides that, the whole point of DnD is that you don't explicitly NEED a certain party set up. Especially in 5e.

You don't NEED a Fighter to be on the frontlines. You don't NEED a Rogue (As disarming traps and lockpicking is not exclusive to Rogue in this edition). You can have as many spell casters as you wish in a party (You can have a full party of spell casters. Either as all true casters or you can have hybrids like EK/Abjurer as tanky melee fighters). You don't NEED a healer (And actually, not healing is objectively better than having a healer as preventative measures are stronger and scale better than healing)


It depends.

It's not necessarily true that a limited retinue would create more reactivity sure.

But with a smaller group, it's possible that more depth would need to be added to ensure a similar amount of engagement over the game as the more numerous but shallow companions.

For example, with 6-9 companions, you have 6-9 companion stories to engage with throughout the game. With only 3 companions, you only have 3 companion stories to engage with throughout the game. So in order to retain interactivity those 3 companions need 2-3 times as much content to compare with the larger party.

Of course, nothing stops them from having the large retinue AND having more depth to each character (As it would require the same development time either way). They're just more incentivized with the limited party to ensure a compelling experience while with the larger party they can cut corners and get away with relying on quantity for engagement.

I also don't think it would have been a good idea to leave the benched companions behind. Especially considering the implications it has for their well being, but also because I like to sometimes switch someone in, for company, for their quests or just because I might need a different skillset for a day.

Depth is also not related to having less characters around because it wouldn't change how dialogue is handled. I really like Gale as a romance and as a companion, but even more so since I started to trust his dialogue. It usually allows you to have several positions on a matter and explores your stance in the following conversation. You can show yourself to be vulnerable or struggling with trust, and he relates to theses feelings, giving it the effect of a real conversation, while the dialogues of other companions feel far more focused on them, without allowing the PC to have complex emotions. For example the whole orb situation allows you to be torn between being scared by orb and your affection, you can also snoop through his mind to uncover his secret but then instantly feel bad about it and confess the transgression, leading to a very satisfying conversation. Compare that to Astarion confessing his feelings in act 2, which gives you several options to break up with him, but only one route to continue the relationship. You cannot be hurt by his deception while still wanting to be with him. The only thing he will console you over is your character questioning their hotness, which feels so weirdly out of place in a discussion about emotions and trust. ^^;


Yeah I wondered why they cut the companions commenting on your active romance. I also feel the only weird love triangle situation is Halsin, while the act 2 stuff is more about giving you an option to change your mind if needed.

Edit: Oh and I agree with what Taril wrote about not needing specific classes/positions. There is fun in taking along whom you like and then see how your chosen gang works best together.

Are you suggesting that in games with "blank slate" characters it's impossible to create an intriguing narrative? That is: As long as there arent' formulaic Bioware-style companions to accompany that character (level up, get companion quest, get backstory, get sex) ?

If yes, games as early as Ultima IV/V want to have a word with you.

Not at all.

I'm saying if a Blank Slate character has no characterization and is not written into the story, then the narrative will suffer.

The companions in BG3 offer characters that are written into the story and provide necessary player involvement in the narrative (This is not due to their "Bioware-style" but simply due to their involvement with events that occur)

Pillars of Eternity games use blank slate protagonist, but the story revolves around them and their interaction. Same with Owlcat games, Kingmaker, Wrath of the Righteous, Rogue Trader. Your actual character is a blank slate. But is written to be integral to the narrative.

Even in Divinity. You're a blank slate character. But you're narratively important.

In BG3, besides being Tadpoled... Your personal characters have literally nothing to do with the world or narrative as a whole (Besides some random favouritism from The Emperor). They're just along for the ride.

I can say I enjoyed having the other origin characters with me the first 3 or 4 times.. but after that I got REAL tired of a couple of them real quick.

Gale because of his constant nagging or wanting to tell me some useless story.

Shadowheart because of her flashbacks and mental issues.

Lae'zel because of her nagging about the creche then about the other issues.

Honestly most play throughs I play now I leave them in camp and take hirelings or I just dont bother with them and rely on hirelings.



As for the overly sexualized... well its D&D. Horny nerds and their fantasies.

Don't pin it on D&D. No other D&D game (BG1-2, NWN, Gold Box,...) was even a fraction as horny as BG3, nor needed to be in order to be successful.

Really? Where do you get this idea of D&D from? An audience that values "naked walkthroughs" and demands "more sex" has nothing to do with D&D and RPG players at all. It can be beneficial to attract just NOT a D&D audience, it's "mass-market". And they can ignore D&D and RPG fans and put rails instead of roleplay in various places of this game, because the audience, far from the concept of "roleplay" will gladly accept it, just to have more kisses and stuff.

Need I point out the old tropes of Bards sleeping with EVERYTHING that moves. Hell several D&D content creators have made fun of this since the beginning of time. (AllForOne, One Shot Questers, Critical Role to name a few).

Even the old video of the teens playing D&D.. Summoner Geeks...
[video:youtube][/video]

Its pretty much a staple in D&D humor.

This is certainly first time I've ever hear someone claim that an R-rated game has mass-market appeal....

Ah, I didn't get the joke, I bought it, the game is so harsh here that I'm not getting the humor anymore. AllForOne and Critical Role - yeah, I watched them, they're really funny.

Viva La Dirt League here recently released a funny video on BG3 (just in the theme of this thread) if you want a laugh:


This team, by the way, filmed their own game in D&D, and they do without the theme of sex, but their humor is great and the characters are very bright. About the lusty bard - I've been playing D&D since I was 15 years old and I've never seen anyone try to play this role, although it can be done very interesting - the image of Jaskier from "The Witcher" (in the English version, like - Dandelion) is an example of this, but in real rolepley to take on stamps like lusty bard, stupid paladin, etc.. - it's really hard. Coming up with a character and playing it in such a way that it's cool and not stupid, not to slip into nonsense and not to become someone who spoils the game and immersion of the whole party, I think, is a very difficult task.

But I think Larian certainly didn't seem unlikely to want to joke about D&D in any way, or D&D players for that matter. Especially since joke content like the one you cited, it's much milder than what's in BG3. Playing on baser instincts is a common mass-market game, it's primarily marketing designed to reach an audience that doesn't usually play RPG genre games.

Back on topic, here's an article that says the game even used special intimacy coordinators for the sex scenes:

https://www.pcgamer.com/baldurs-gat...n-a-recording-session-at-all-says-actor/

That's to the question of wasting resources. Couldn't they just make the scenes simpler and calmer? Without the bear, without some of the other extremely unpleasant sex scenes?

I wouldn't call THAT of all things a waste of resources. It is never specified what their intimacy coordinator did, but in general - at least from my understanding - they make sure actors feel save during scenes under the broader umbrella of intimacy, be it sex or other forms of intimacy. Which basically can be anything that isn't an extreme fade to black, I could imagine that even intense dialogue scenes fall into that category.

Though, you have to keep in mind. Not everyone wants to play D&D and be super cereal and cool.

Sometimes people just want to mess around.

Hence things like lusty Bards, murderhobos, 3 INT Barbarians who cannot communicate with anything, people homebrewing crazy OP things etc.

It's an aspect of D&D that can't be discounted. The ability to do what you want, allows people to joke around. This ranges from the game derailing murderhobo streaks (And subsequent "Rocks fall and everyone dies" DM responses), to things like playing silly characters but in a reasonable way (Like for example Sir Bearington)

Not everyone likes to play this way, many like a more serious approach. But it's popular enough to create pop culture references to the types of players who do that stuff.

It's not just jokes like the horny bard trope, and calling the monster manual a "waifu catalogue". The D&D fandom are infamously responsible for publishing the Book of Erotic Fantasy, the Book of Unlawful Carnal Knowledge, and Nymphology. There's always been horny people here.

If you run with enough ttrpg groups that have been playing for more than a few years you'll realise that nearly everyone has a tale of that one time someone tried to vicariously play out a sexual fantasy via an rpg. Spend 10 minutes reading rpg horror stories and you'll find multiple examples.

Sometimes this can be as tame as one player trying to have their character romance another player's character because they have a crush (doing stuff like this stinks of roleplay bleed, and almost never works out the way the initiator wants it too). But sometimes it's the Dm trying to force their players to act out a fetish. I've personally been witness to both these examples. Shit like this is the very reason that people like me won't shut up about talking to your DM about personal boundaries, and for the wider community placing increased emphasis on having a non-play session 0 where players and DMs talk about content and establish hard boundaries.

I'll also say that the two really aren't mutually exclusive. Sometimes you'll get groups who have stretches of really silly, jokey stuff, then they'll get back into serious roleplay and intense story stuff. I'd argue that that's probably the default for most ttrpgs unless you're being really strict about it. Very few groups want to be constantly silly for an entire campaign and very few want to just be constantly serious. Both are exhausting for different reasons if they go on long enough.

As for inherent horniness in the hobby, I just finished watching the first ever season of Dimension 20 I've ever watched. I started with "The Seven," can recommend it. The season was about an adventuring party of high school girls and it was the most consistently horny actual play I've ever seen/listened to. There were no inter-party romances but the cast and their characters were regularly getting VERY vocal about how hot various NPCs were, two occasions where the PCs actually went off to have sex, and this was all mixed with incredible hilarity and a lot of intense moments of roleplay and emotional scenes that genuinely had impact. I'd argue that that was actually more consistently horny than BG3. It didn't have the intense peaks that BG3 did, but the horniness was more present throughout the production. So yeah, my opinion once again is that BG3 isn't nearly as horny as some people say. It's definitely sexualized, but not to any absurd degree.

Its obvious that many people here have never played D&D as tabletop.
The chainmail bikinis ect, are things players joke about, but they never happen in the game. In the few cases you do have such a horny guy at the table he is usually quickly kicked out for being weird.
The sexual content published as book or streaming is designed for non d&d players to grab their attention. Just like in BG3.

I agree. I play DnD a very long time now and never had chain mail bikinis or horny bards ( normally I'm the bard and I don't play horny)
Those stereotypes are more from other medias than tabletop.

True. Though the "Full silly" tends to be for shorter one-shots. Where there's less planning from the DM and it's all about just having a bit of fun so you might have some silly rules in place (I've seen things like any nat 20 comes with a Wild Magic roll. People starting with a Deck of Many Things. As well as various joke characters)

Normal campaigns tend to not have pure silly stuff, as players who try it will often find themselves not invited to subsequent sessions.


And it's obvious that some people haven't played with that many others.

Chainmail bikinis were never primarily attributed to D&D (How could it? TT D&D is more imagination than artwork), it's mostly a video game meme. One that is often founded in reality, where you can find plenty of games where female characters get revealing armours.

Horny bards are a thing though. As are horny Sorcerers. A lot of CHR players can only think of Charisma dialogues being seduction. The nuances of diplomacy, intimidation, coersion and other forms of manipulation are less apparent to them so they just go with "I seduce them" when they need to interact with NPC's.

Of course, this is less their need to RP having sex and more a way to obtain something from an NPC (Information, items etc). But it does create the reputation of those classes being "Horny" when their answers to situations is often "Seduction" (With it often being justification for a Sorcerer's bloodline like "Oh my dad was a Bard that boinked a Dragon that's why I'm a draconic sorcerer!")

Yep, also played D&D for many years (and other systems) and never had people misbehave at the table - there was a bit of innuendo now and then, when it fit the RPG scenario, but nothing salacious or graphic. And we were quite an irreverent bunch. In BG3 I just find it very contrived and designed to make the game 'cool' and add 'shock value' (OMG - bear!!). Certainly the original BG saga doesn't have anything remotely as graphic (or even implied). But it is clear any connection to those games is fairly tenuous, beyond Baldurs Gate itself and a few cameos.

I'll also add my agreement to this. Played TT D&D a lot back in my day when I was younger (so late 80s and through the 90s), and we never had any of this silliness or horniness in our many games, and if we happened to end up with a player like that they got bounced right quick (or learned to become mature right quick). Even something like barrelmancy would have not been tolerated in any of the groups I played with. And this even though my groups were always very happy-go-lucky, and we were all about drinking beer and eating pizza while playing, teasing and joking with one another and the like.