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.

I see what you're saying here and agree it can use some work. I had the issue in BG3 where Gale was trying to "teach magic" to me and the moment I said yes things got 1000% gay. I mean that's cool if that's what you're going for and I'm glad it's there for people that want it, but for me it went from 0mph to 1000mph and from straight to gay very very quickly. One second I'm asking him about the girl he's in love with, the next second he's standing uncomfortably close to me and looking deep into my eyes.

That whole scene always bothered me because of how jarring it felt. I suppose the kind of lame way Bioware used to do it with a heart next to the message would at least warn you not to click it. But I'm not so sure I want icons displaying next to dialog choices. But yea, either way relationships both platonic and not can always use more time to simmer, more options to lead it, and more options to back off or put the petal to the metal.


Agreed. Unfortunately I don't think there's a right or wrong answer here.

I think it's mostly in the hands of the devs on how they want to handle it and it definitely has an effect on the way the relationships feel to the player but I guess it comes down to choosing the right design for the right game.

Why yes Gale is a huge creep and would get beaten up a lot if he tried such things in reallife.

It also makes no sense. The guy just said he's in love with Mystra. So why is he suddenly hitting on my protagonist ?!?!?!?!!??

If he's "hitting on you", then that's because you were having a fnatasy of kissing him and allowed him to see that thought , right ?
And even then, he refuses to go any step further along that path as long as his orb is unstable, unwilling to endange you.

Um.

I have no clue why you think someone whos first statement about Gale is "he's a huge creep" would ever romance Gale.

I literally dont want to know how that romance goes, thank you very much.

Btw even if he wasnt such a creep, I'm a straight dude, I dont care about romances with any male charaters.

And how is the game script supposed to magically know the sexuality of the player?

This goes both ways, the female characters tries to romance the player character as well, even if the player is a straight female or gay male. So by that standard, everyone is a creep.

The game handles it by simply giving you the option to reject them. I don't know what you expect from the game unless you are willing to take a survey and register your sexuality before the game even begins.

It doesn't need to know the sexuality of the player.

It just needs to be more clear about what dialogue options are alluding to.

There's a vast difference between a bro just showing you how cool magic is and him whispering sweet nothings into your ear as you think about kissing him.

Yet the dialogue option with Gale doesn't really make it clear.

It's just "Hey do you wanna see some cool magic?" and then it's suddenly all intimate.

More clarity with dialogue options (And more fleshed out alternate states of platonic and romantic relationships) means you can more accurately move forward in your intended way, without accidentally ploughing into the romance option unawares.

This is a relevant point in general, but the example of Gale is not a good reflection of the issue. When it comes to Gale you do have very clear dialogue options, two of the options allude to thinking about kissing and holding hands and the others are either platonic or downright rude. It does not jump into anything intimate unless you choose one of the obvious romantic options, so you can't really complain that Gale responds with romantic interest when you have been showing him thoughts about being intimate with him.

If you want to highlight the issue then Karlach -"I want to ride you until you see stars"- or Laezel -"I want to taste your sweat"- are far clearer examples since they will jump at you with those lines no matter what you have said to them before. Gale has one of the most clearly signalled platonic or romantic paths out of all the companions, yet he gets thrown around as the example of the person who can't read the room while Lae'zel and Karlach (and Minthara) somehow gets a free pass.

Disclaimer: If you only played the early release of the game, Gale's romance flags were bugged, causing him to act as if you were in a romantic relationship even if you had turned him down or never initiated anything romantic. This was cleared up in the patches, so the issue no longer exists. Obviously Larian should take care that such bugs do not happen when it comes to romance as it is clearly not intended to play out that way.

I don't know about Minsc, but for all the other male companions, there are mods to turn them female.