Larian Studios Forums Divinity General Discussion Divinity needs to learn from BG3 Romance Problems

I'm sorry, but that sounds like fluff and decoration, not actual gameplay content.

You literally ask us to passively view someone elses romance.

A mere "by the way, we two are together now" would suffice for me in that scenario.

Because player romances aren't fluff and decoration?

What gameplay content do they provide? A low effort sex scene? The ability to initiate an awkward kiss scene?

Meanwhile, I suggested things that could actually impact gameplay (Rivalries that make certain companion set ups not possible)


I mean, it's up to you if you want to sit there and expressly watch their romance progress.

Beyond that, there might be some dialogue changes in the likes of expressing concern if someone is being put into a dangerous situation (Including stuff like the altered barks that happen in BG3 when a character goes down when the player has high affection), some subtle changes like their tents in camp moving to be together.

Nothing that necessitates detracting from the general gameplay, but that still provides a nod to the fact that companions are in fact, people who do people things like form connections (With entities outside of the player).

Which would also highlight the fact that IF the player successfully initiates a romance with them, it's because the player managed to grow close enough to them in order for it to happen. Rather than BG3 where it's just assumed that every companion will automatically be lusting for the PC and no-one but the PC (Despite Wyll's, terrible, attempts to woo Lae'zel and Shadowheart in dialogues when roaming around together in a party)

Well, I want to be able to choose who of the team I like most and gradually deepening that relation. Not the rush start as in BG3, but slowly like in BG2.

In a real world setting, if you are isolated with a mixed (young) group and experience rather demanding situations together, romance will pop up, so will drama, break ups and new partner combinations. You will learn more about each other and how to work effectively together with your recent ex, because you have to. If you have experienced it you know, even so, I do think the BG3 rush is the most realistic depiction I have seen in a game. But it is not how I would prefer it handled in a game.

There was also Lae'zel who would hook up with someone else at the tiefling party if rejected and Shadowheart who will confess to having lustful thoughts about Halsin once or twice, or more. But the latter led to death threats towards the writer, so though I personally would really enjoy some more dynamics, drama and conflict within the companion relationships, maybe the gaming community isn't mature enough for it.

I'm so conflicted with this.

I actually agree with both of ya'll in different respects. Personally I think there's nothing more fulfilling than fulfilling the power fantasy in an RPG. I just like to have to work for it. But by the time the RPG is wrapping up there is some serious entertainment value from the game adhering and rewarding all your effort, work, strategy, character building, and exploration to result in a well developed power fantasy.

With that said... yes NPC's should have their own goals and ideas. I think it's perfectly natural for you to "befriend" someone in an RPG that you don't particularly like, or that you disagree with, because you either need them for plot or you simply need their help to solve a situation. Friction causes drama, and drama always makes an epic tale (or game) even more fun that it would be without it.

As far as romances... I love romances in RPG's. But my issues with romances start to arise when you have games like Dragon Age: Inquisition where the only romance options for the straight male player were masculine butchy, unattractive women. I can enjoy unattractive companions, I just don't want to romance them. It's a real shame when someone who typically likes romance in stories has to go out of their way to avoid it in a game with romance options because the options provided were not appealing in the least. This is the reason why I can't shame the way Larian handled BG3 romances. For me, I see player freedom in it. And in many ways, when crafting a good RPG player freedom is an important part of satisfying that players view of the RPG... and that goes doubly for romance.

I guess I believe romance options should definitely be available in deep narrative driven RPG's like this, but it never feels good when the person you fall for can't be romanced in the game. If you interact with enough people it happens enough in real life I don't need it to be happening in my fantasy adventure.

The crux is the scope of the power.

A typical RPG is about you, the protagonist, working to overcome insurmountable odds and become the hero.

While a power trip is you, the protagonist, being a Mary Sue and being literally unstoppable and having complete control over everything.

Essentially, it's like the difference between beating a difficult boss to get some really nice loot and using console commands to just spawn it in your inventory.

Both lead to your character having the powerful loot. But one is earned the other is given.


Having NPC's with their own personalities is great.

The main concern with the original quote is more so the inability to actually differentiate your own personal goals with interactions.

It happens a lot in RPG's where any dialogue option that is in anyway positive is taken to mean "Romance" and the only options to not pursue a romance are "Be a massive jerkface".

So if you are talking to some NPC to find out more information about them or the world... If they're not a romance option then it's fine, you can talk to them all day without issue and develop a friendship. If they are a romance option, you either get locked into a romance with them or you don't get to talk to them at all.

Whereas the ideal would be for there to be options for platonic relationships alongside options for romantic ones. While having the option to turn down advances without being a colossal jerk (As even if you try to be platonic, NPC's can still fall for you due to other actions)


The ever present concern is player freedom vs character building.

Playersexual NPC's provide the most player freedom as someone is free to romance anyone they wish regardless of their character.

However, such a thing can detract from the character's personality.

Of course, one does have to consider how much of a person's personality is their sexuality? Your average Twitter user it's their entire personality, but for sane people it's barely a mention.