Larian Studios
Posted By: pinklily Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 06:37 AM
Genuinely curious since I see a lot of people complain about it. I don't hate the concept but I never see myself playing the origins and I kind of wish they would redirect resources to making the PC more interesting.
Posted By: Zarna Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 06:47 AM
I would probably try out a couple if I was bored, but I prefer coming up with my own character and having the companions with their own stories.
Posted By: pinklily Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 06:51 AM
Originally Posted by Zarna
I would probably try out a couple if I was bored, but I prefer coming up with my own character and having the companions with their own stories.



ngl, I used the mod to check out a bit of Astarion's origin because I wanted more insight into the character. But I got bored quickly not playing my custom character and abandoned the playthrough.
Posted By: Fikoley Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 07:05 AM
I prefer origin companions instead of custom created by myself.
Posted By: Abits Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 07:15 AM
Lots of people. Post this question on Reddit and you'll see
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 07:31 AM
Originally Posted by pinklily
Originally Posted by Zarna
I would probably try out a couple if I was bored, but I prefer coming up with my own character and having the companions with their own stories.


I used the mod to check out a bit of Astarion's origin because I wanted more insight into the character. But I got bored quickly not playing my custom character and abandoned the playthrough.


Same here. I wanted to find out what in SH's box but quickly got bored. What annoyed me were the things Shadowheart was saying to herself when she hit a ground trigger. It was playing someone else's character and just wasn't invested in her -- wait, I didn't want her to say that . . . I became a viewer instead of a participant.
Posted By: pinklily Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 07:49 AM
Originally Posted by Fikoley
I prefer origin companions instead of custom created by myself.


What's the appeal, if you don't mind my asking? I can see wanting to play a developed character like Geralt in the Witcher series, but even then the story focuses on the POV of one character whereas the Origin system has many.


Originally Posted by KillerRabbit
Originally Posted by pinklily
Originally Posted by Zarna
I would probably try out a couple if I was bored, but I prefer coming up with my own character and having the companions with their own stories.


I used the mod to check out a bit of Astarion's origin because I wanted more insight into the character. But I got bored quickly not playing my custom character and abandoned the playthrough.


Same here. I wanted to find out what in SH's box but quickly got bored. What annoyed me were the things Shadowheart was saying to herself when she hit a ground trigger. It was playing someone else's character and just wasn't invested in her -- wait, I didn't want her to say that . . . I became a viewer instead of a participant.


Yeah, maybe it's just because it isn't fully implemented yet but I feel like it's stuck somewhere between removing player agency yet giving too much freedom over an "established" character. Idk, I feel like I'd rather get to know the origins as companions than as PCs.
Posted By: Sordak Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 08:15 AM
nope, i see no point in it.
Its a dumb system as it is.

It would have been smarter to have gone with something that is actually an Origin, rather than a character. If you picked a Backstory and then created a character, thatd be neat.
But instead you just pick a character. Thats not what a roleplaying game is to me
Posted By: Tuco Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 08:30 AM
Not a fan.
And if it was just a matter of flavor wouldn't even worry about it too much.
The real issue is that "origin stories" are spectacularly wasteful. Every additional companion costs a buckload more to be added to the game, forces the dev to give LESS companions in general and I could see a lot of these resources (money, above all) being better directed at aspects that would improve core mechanics and the experience for everyone (i.e. that infamous day/night cycle that Larian dismissed months ago as too much work to bother with).

I also confess to struggle a bit to see the appeal.
I love experiencing these companions stories from a... well, companion perspective, but not even once playing BG1 or BG2 I've ever caught myself thinking "Man, if only I was offered the chance to play the entire story as Minsc or Viconia". Nah, that never happened.
A lot of people chose to play as origin characters in DOS2. A lot. More than half the people I've ever seen playing DOS2 on Twitch have been playing as origin characters. Something that hardcore RPG fans don't want and wouldn't use isn't necessarily a bad feature. Because there are gonna be a ton of casual players who buy this game, who have never played D&D, who are not CRPG veterans, and they just want to jump in and play, not try to figure out how to make a character in a complex system they don't understand. People will play the origin characters. And they will enjoy them.

I probably won't, realistically. Most of the people on this forum probably won't. But we're a minority.
Posted By: Tuco Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 08:38 AM
Yeah, can't really say I have any interest to discuss it from a popularity perspective.
I just don't think it makes the game particularly better.

Also, a lot of people played Origin stories because they were there to play. I did as well.
Then again, a lot of people if given the in-game prompt to try it would probably attempt to fuck a corpse. I'm not sure that translates in "that's exactly what everyone wanted".
Anything that makes the game more accessible makes the game better. More accessible means higher sales. Higher sales means more funding for follow-up DLC or sequels.
Posted By: Tuco Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 08:48 AM
"More accessible" in this context sounds just like a buzzword.
Posted By: Sordak Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 08:48 AM
The reason people picked Origins in OS2 was because they were less constrainign and because their stories, while definitly stories, left more to the imagination besides Fane realy.
Posted By: pinklily Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 09:15 AM
Originally Posted by Sordak
The reason people picked Origins in OS2 was because they were less constrainign and because their stories, while definitly stories, left more to the imagination besides Fane realy.



Would having more robust background/role play options for a custom PC hold a similar appeal? Or is it that they have specific stories/identity to explore? the DOS2/BG3 Origins system is fairly unique, as far as I've seen. Normally we get an established character (Geralt, FF protags, etc.) that is the center of the story. Their identity is important since the story is specifically tailored to their POV. Then there's games like Mass Effect where you have a set character (Shepard) who has a similar narrative drive but the player shapes the identity. In games like the original BG and DA:O, the PC is less defined, relying more on player role play. The divide between these latter two seems more contentious, since they both attract people who wish to RP but to different degrees--some people find the voiced Shepard to be more relatable/immersive while the DA:O type protag allows for more player freedom. Origins seem to occupy a grey area, where, since there are several, the story can't be tailored to them in the way it could be for Shepard and Geralt, but they are voiced and, I imagine, would be less immersion breaking for some?

I don't inherently dislike the idea but I wonder if a similar appeal would be achieved if they expanded the options for PC/made a PC preset.
Posted By: CMF Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 09:32 AM
I view origin stories the same as say....legend of zelda, metal gear solid, assassin's creed, mario brothers, sonic the hedgehog, quake....that is not your character, it was handed to you. That story is not one you made up, it was crafted and put into the game with game mechanics supporting it.

If anything custom characters are flat because there is no story at all for that character beyond a generic game story, so you are missing out on a quarter of the game by not having one of your four characters have a built in back story with possible rewards or lore tied into the game.

I did not play a lot of D&D growing up, but I distinctly remember there used to be pre-built character cards and minor stories that can be made by the DM handed out to players. If anything, the pinnacle of roleplaying is playing someone you didn't make up and having to adapt to a role provided instead of just making someone similar to your own mind set, but with elf ears, or mimicking a cool story I read in a book somewhere, or even better, making a generically evil character who "mwa ha ha's" and does all the evil things with no plot because it is fun.
Posted By: Uncle Lester Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 09:56 AM
In theory, I like the idea. I think it's a step forward for games (and RPGs in particular) to allow choice between a fixed protagonist and a custom one. I personally like custom PCs more, but I enjoy games with different approaches and I think they all are valid (fixed Geralt, Grey Warden origins, custom Dragonborn).

In reality... I don't hate origins in BG3, but there are several problems with them.

1. As Tuco said: resources. Lots and lots of resources. That could be better used for something else.

2. I don't know if that's still up-to-date, but Larian stated that they want all companions to be origins. They also want each origin/companion to be extremely story-rich. I'm normally for quality over quantity, but that's too much "quality" that came at the steep cost of the choice of companions being... poor. Very poor. Half the BG2 companions, more or less.

3. Origins are not fixed enough imo. We already have custom protagonists if someone wants freedom of roleplaying. Larian decided to not limit our dialogue options when playing origins (afaik), which makes them... diluted? I think if you go with a fixed character, it's a good idea to trade some player freedom for more personality. (I'm not saying remove all options, of course, but limit those to what the character could realistically say/decide. There are still multiple origin paths to follow.)

4. You have to tailor the story to this dual system. The story has to work with all companions potentially being protagonists. That's limiting the narrative.

5. This is a problem that I think is more a matter of perception than an actual problem, but origins make custom characters look even more bland. I think most people would be fine with not much background for customs (a'la TES), but when you juxtapose those with origins it suddenly looks like there's nothing interesting about custom PCs. Custom characters have main plot, origins have main plot + origin plot. The former seem inferior narrative-wise.

Imo there's a couple of ways to deal with most of these problems, but that would require quite a lot of resources (so sans 1.).
Posted By: Zarna Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 09:59 AM
Originally Posted by pinklily

Would having more robust background/role play options for a custom PC hold a similar appeal? Or is it that they have specific stories/identity to explore? the DOS2/BG3 Origins system is fairly unique, as far as I've seen. Normally we get an established character (Geralt, FF protags, etc.) that is the center of the story. Their identity is important since the story is specifically tailored to their POV. Then there's games like Mass Effect where you have a set character (Shepard) who has a similar narrative drive but the player shapes the identity. In games like the original BG and DA:O, the PC is less defined, relying more on player role play. The divide between these latter two seems more contentious, since they both attract people who wish to RP but to different degrees--some people find the voiced Shepard to be more relatable/immersive while the DA:O type protag allows for more player freedom. Origins seem to occupy a grey area, where, since there are several, the story can't be tailored to them in the way it could be for Shepard and Geralt, but they are voiced and, I imagine, would be less immersion breaking for some?

I don't inherently dislike the idea but I wonder if a similar appeal would be achieved if they expanded the options for PC/made a PC preset.

If a game looks interesting where you play a specific person then I will buy it. This is rare for me. I have played the DA series and ME 1-3, with these I knew I was being handed a character, but one that could develop within a framework. This was better but still not as good as the DnD system where you fully make your character, partly why I was so excited about this game. I wouldn't mind if they added custom presets but only if they leave the current system as well.

Originally Posted by CMF

If anything custom characters are flat because there is no story at all for that character beyond a generic game story, so you are missing out on a quarter of the game by not having one of your four characters have a built in back story with possible rewards or lore tied into the game.

I did not play a lot of D&D growing up, but I distinctly remember there used to be pre-built character cards and minor stories that can be made by the DM handed out to players. If anything, the pinnacle of roleplaying is playing someone you didn't make up and having to adapt to a role provided instead of just making someone similar to your own mind set, but with elf ears, or mimicking a cool story I read in a book somewhere, or even better, making a generically evil character who "mwa ha ha's" and does all the evil things with no plot because it is fun.

Maybe it is because I know a decent amount about the FR but I find it easy to tie my created backstory into the game setting. Custom templates for people new to this or who can't come up with anything on their own would probably help but there needs to still be the current free option as well.

When I make up characters I usually find they are different to me and they develop as the plot makes them even though it is usually not "optimised". I could play a premade but would find it really boring to do so, especially if I can't get in their heads so to speak. I would need to completely understand the character, otherwise the rp from me would most likely not be what the DM intended.
Posted By: VincentNZ Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 10:20 AM
If you use a custom PC I see no gameplay difference between Origin characters and companions of comparable games. The only difference is story-related, before we were settling family matters (Anomen, Keldorn), face an adversary/trauma from the past (Jaheira, Aloth), an extra dungeon quest (Korgan, Valygar) or some/all of the above (Eder).
Now we have companions with such extreme issues that could potenitally shake the foundations of the eart itself. You could argue that the theft of Boo is also such a world-defining trauma, however each of the Origin story is overwhelming and simply not relatable any more, since you do that 3-4 times over.

If you yourself chose to be an Origin character, I suppose you get that for yourself, but still have to face equal issues of your companions, that also share your tadpole, so the innate drive of the main quest. So the main quest is actually not an individual issue, but a group effort, which I find a really fresh idea tendencially, but it clashes with the equally important personal quests and a general lack of group interaction (and interaction in general). The bonus is you get a pre-defined character to play as, with a backstory you do not have to make up for yourself. That surely is an advantage with many people and a popular choice. I bet many people never changed the appearance of Commander Shepard for the exact reason that they wanted to play HIS story, not their own.

However, as we are playing BG3, it clashes with the predecessors, where the whole point was to experience the Bhaalspawn's story. In BG3, compared to the Origin characters the PC is just an accident; the equivalent of the possessed bakers and fishermen you see on the illithid ship. I find that annoying.
Posted By: Zarna Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 10:38 AM
Originally Posted by VincentNZ

However, as we are playing BG3, it clashes with the predecessors, where the whole point was to experience the Bhaalspawn's story. In BG3, compared to the Origin characters the PC is just an accident; the equivalent of the possessed bakers and fishermen you see on the illithid ship. I find that annoying.

I have never played the other games, only started recently with BG1 but finding a lot of things irritating about it. I like the openness of this game much better in that there are many paths to take. I don't think we are just an accident, there will be something revealed later on that will show why we are "special". Perhaps there should be hints at this for the impatient people?
Posted By: RumRunner151 Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 10:38 AM
Ive googled, but I must be missing something. What is the difference between an origin character and a companion? It seems like a companion that you can choose instead of making a custom character. Which leads me to the most important part of my lack of understanding: If I spend time making a good companion, why does it take more resources to make them an origin?
Posted By: Bukke Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 11:09 AM
Originally Posted by RumRunner151
Ive googled, but I must be missing something. What is the difference between an origin character and a companion? It seems like a companion that you can choose instead of making a custom character. Which leads me to the most important part of my lack of understanding: If I spend time making a good companion, why does it take more resources to make them an origin?

Origin characters are also companions. The difference is that you also have the option to start the game as one of the companion NPCs and then play through the game as if the companion is your main character. This also means that in the places where a normal companion quest might play out you experience it first-hand rather than second hand [through your companion].
Think of it as playing the game through the eyes of one of the companions.

The term 'origin character' is just Larian's term to describe their type of companions in order to differentiate them from 'classic' RPG companions who only act as party members.
Originally Posted by Zarna

I have never played the other games, only started recently with BG1 but finding a lot of things irritating about it. I like the openness of this game much better in that there are many paths to take. I don't think we are just an accident, there will be something revealed later on that will show why we are "special". Perhaps there should be hints at this for the impatient people?

The hints are there, but it's an old game and they are quite subtle compared to what you get nowadays. In one particular case the only way to get a companion to spill the beans is to charm them before you talk to them.

Though imo the best game based on the idea of a "mysterious past" you need to uncover remains Planescape Torment.
Posted By: VincentNZ Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 11:19 AM
Originally Posted by Zarna
Originally Posted by VincentNZ

However, as we are playing BG3, it clashes with the predecessors, where the whole point was to experience the Bhaalspawn's story. In BG3, compared to the Origin characters the PC is just an accident; the equivalent of the possessed bakers and fishermen you see on the illithid ship. I find that annoying.

I have never played the other games, only started recently with BG1 but finding a lot of things irritating about it. I like the openness of this game much better in that there are many paths to take. I don't think we are just an accident, there will be something revealed later on that will show why we are "special". Perhaps there should be hints at this for the impatient people?


Oh yeah, I see your point, I can acknowledge how this seems alien to you. I am fine with playing Commander Shepard's story, I am also fine with the clean slate of the Courier or the Vault Dweller, that makes me create my own story. Or the Bhaalspawn where I follow a certain story, but also shape my character before and during the adventure.
BG3 wants to sort of be all three and I find that irritating. Each Origin has the main quest and a personal issue that seems just as grand. My PC, so far, has just the tadpole. Adding something similarily grand would help, I suppose, but then you are still left with three other characters of the same story importance and relevance as your character. So it is still a group effort.
As said, that is an intriguing and fresh premise. Instead of one protagonist you have four, or more correctly you have a group protagonist. However that group is not an entity. Whoever you chose is the leader and everything evolves around him with little to no input from the rest of the individuals that share the fate. Oh they have opinions, but do not act on them really, they do not debate, there are no consequences and no group interactions.

I'd much rather have regular companions that can not be PCs. Added to that I like my companions to have relatable issues and not some form of Marvel Universe superhero origin story. It really feels like I am playing each of the Avengers' origin story at once, and if I play my PC I am not Ironman in this group, but SHIELD agent No. 17
Posted By: RumRunner151 Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 11:24 AM
Originally Posted by Bukke
Originally Posted by RumRunner151
Ive googled, but I must be missing something. What is the difference between an origin character and a companion? It seems like a companion that you can choose instead of making a custom character. Which leads me to the most important part of my lack of understanding: If I spend time making a good companion, why does it take more resources to make them an origin?

Origin characters are also companions. The difference is that you also have the option to start the game as one of the companion NPCs and then play through the game as if the companion is your main character. This also means that in the places where a normal companion quest might play out you experience it first-hand rather than second hand [through your companion].
Think of it as playing the game through the eyes of one of the companions.

The term 'origin character' is just Larian's term to describe their type of companions in order to differentiate them from 'classic' RPG companions who only act as party members.


Right but some people complained that it was a waste of resources. Cool and well-fleshed out companions are part of what makes this game cool IMO. So what additional work needs to be done?
Posted By: Bukke Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 11:36 AM
Originally Posted by RumRunner151
Originally Posted by Bukke
Originally Posted by RumRunner151
Ive googled, but I must be missing something. What is the difference between an origin character and a companion? It seems like a companion that you can choose instead of making a custom character. Which leads me to the most important part of my lack of understanding: If I spend time making a good companion, why does it take more resources to make them an origin?

Origin characters are also companions. The difference is that you also have the option to start the game as one of the companion NPCs and then play through the game as if the companion is your main character. This also means that in the places where a normal companion quest might play out you experience it first-hand rather than second hand [through your companion].
Think of it as playing the game through the eyes of one of the companions.

The term 'origin character' is just Larian's term to describe their type of companions in order to differentiate them from 'classic' RPG companions who only act as party members.


Right but some people complained that it was a waste of resources. Cool and well-fleshed out companions are part of what makes this game cool IMO. So what additional work needs to be done?

In a different RPG with traditional companions you'd 'only' have to put in development time and resources to let you interact with the companion and experience their companion quest(s) through the eyes of the player's custom character. Basically making the player's custom character an observer to the events that happen to the companion.

The additional work refers to how Larian has to make playing as one of the origin characters interesting enough in order to justify it being an option.
This means that some dialogues will require unique options only available to that specific character. Some problems and encounters will require you to be able to handle them in a specific way that'd make sense for the character in question. Some cutscene sequences like
the dreaming sequences in BG3

will have to be recorded, written, animated, scripted and voiced just so the player can experience them - essentially making it 'game content' that exclusively is available if you picked that specific origin character. Now multiply this by every unique encounter in the game and then multiply it again for every origin character who gets unique interactions. It quickly adds up to a lot of extra time and resources. What the people you're referring to are concerned about is whether or not this is a sound investment since they'd rather have the time spent developing or refining other aspects of the game.
Posted By: Khorvale Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 11:39 AM
I like the idea of it but for Divinity OS2 at least, I felt like it fell rather flat as the stories in that one were pretty mediocre. I did like Ifan's origin story but I think it had more to do with the brooding anti-hero vibe than the actual narrative.
Hopefully they're bringing their a-game for BG3 and improving their Origin stories because it's pretty cool idea (and nice that you don't have to)
Posted By: Nicottia Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 02:07 PM
I pretty much agree with everything Tuco and Uncle Lester have said, er, written.

To me, our current 'origin' guys could perfectly function as they do now - as damn companions. And it's already been pointed out what a huge waste of resources it is to write, record and code every single permutation for every single origin-would-be-protagonist. Add to that we don't even have all the origins in yet. Also, some of you said that creating your own character for newcomers to D&D might be challenging, if not outright off-putting and how it couldn't be done in original BG games.

To that I say, yes you could do it: https://i.imgur.com/FmZpQWA.jpg

Yet not a single one of these characters was an origin a'la Larian creations. They are just templates for you to pick from if you can't be arsed to come up with your own. I don't think anyone would complain if Larian gave us a bunch of templates to pick from, who would have pretty much the same beginning as any custom. And leave our current origins as extra fleshed out companions. And I'm sorry if my entire post is oozing hostility towards origin characters, I hated the concept in DOS2, and I hate them in BG3 as well. I want, like so many of you, to create my own character and their backstory, I don't want to play someone else's character, it's actually one of the reasons I haven't played the Witcher series as of yet (even though I own them all - got them gifted to me actually). I've read the books though, being Polish and all, it's a rite of 'passage'. wink
Posted By: Tarlonniel Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 02:14 PM
Origin characters go in the bin with multiplayer and super-ultra-hard difficulty modes as stuff I'll never touch, and in my ideal world, Larian would've invested their time/resources elsewhere. But as long as they put out $60 worth of fun content for my custom, solo, EZ mode self, I don't care much about the rest of it. If they're passionate about these things - and if they're profitable - more power to 'em.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 02:21 PM
Me, I favour the way DA:O did it. It gave you a place and grounded the character in the world without impairing your own characterisation of them. That's the balance I'd like to see more games strike and developers explore.

D:OS2 and BG3 just feels like they want me to play somebody else's OC (do not steal!) and that doesn't interest me at all. It would be better if they went straight up action like the Witcher games do if that's what they want to do.
Posted By: Uncle Lester Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 02:34 PM
Originally Posted by Nicottia
I pretty much agree with everything Tuco and Uncle Lester have said, er, written.

To me, our current 'origin' guys could perfectly function as they do now - as damn companions. And it's already been pointed out what a huge waste of resources it is to write, record and code every single permutation for every single origin-would-be-protagonist. Add to that we don't even have all the origins in yet. Also, some of you said that creating your own character for newcomers to D&D might be challenging, if not outright off-putting and how it couldn't be done in original BG games.

To that I say, yes you could do it: https://i.imgur.com/FmZpQWA.jpg

Yet not a single one of these characters was an origin a'la Larian creations. They are just templates for you to pick from if you can't be arsed to come up with your own. I don't think anyone would complain if Larian gave us a bunch of templates to pick from, who would have pretty much the same beginning as any custom. And leave our current origins as extra fleshed out companions. And I'm sorry if my entire post is oozing hostility towards origin characters, I hated the concept in DOS2, and I hate them in BG3 as well. I want, like so many of you, to create my own character and their backstory, I don't want to play someone else's character, it's actually one of the reasons I haven't played the Witcher series as of yet (even though I own them all - got them gifted to me actually). I've read the books though, being Polish and all, it's a rite of 'passage'. wink


Good point about the templates - I think it would be a good idea to add them regardless of origins.

As for The Witcher games - I'd encourage you to give them a try. I did a Witcher marathon (books+games) a couple of months ago and I have to say that I think the games actually have better story. (TW3 suffers a bit from being open world, and I personally didn't like the later acts that much, but it's still not bad). I can't say whether you'll have a similar opinion, but imo it's at least worth a try. wink
Originally Posted by ash elemental

Though imo the best game based on the idea of a "mysterious past" you need to uncover remains Planescape Torment.



This is OBJECTIVELY correct.
Posted By: Gathord Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 03:24 PM
As long as I can change the appearance then yes, I enjoy the system. I will definitely play through the game as Astarion sooner or later. Changing the appearance and having the ability to choose what I say is enough to make the character, well, me, so to say.

The system is really not so different from them being normal companions you have in many other rpgs, except you can choose to play them, I know people complain that the origin stories are cooler than the default character, and while that is true it is the same for other RPGs as well. Morrigan is much more interesting than my warden, Saverok/viconia/xzar(and so on) is more interesting than my bhaalspawn. I think a lot of these rpgs would have had similar complaints if you had been able to choose any of the companions to play as instead, just like you will be able to in bg3.

I would still really like to see an origin system like in Dragon age origins, that added quite a bit of flavor to the default characters but in a game with so many races and classes, it would not be an easy task.
Posted By: Evil_it_Self Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 03:42 PM
I prefer the "pre generated characters " method, this is not final fantasy, or dark alliance
Posted By: Leuenherz Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 03:45 PM
Don't care for it, and likely never will. I want to make my own character, not play someone else's. At least in an RPG.

To be entirely fair, though, that says nothing about the quality or the objective value of such predetermined protagonists. I don't care for Witcher either for the same reason, and it's widely lauded as the best RPG of the decade.
Posted By: FaultyValve Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 03:47 PM
Originally Posted by Tarlonniel
Origin characters go in the bin with multiplayer and super-ultra-hard difficulty modes as stuff I'll never touch, and in my ideal world, Larian would've invested their time/resources elsewhere. But as long as they put out $60 worth of fun content for my custom, solo, EZ mode self, I don't care much about the rest of it. If they're passionate about these things - and if they're profitable - more power to 'em.


Agreed.
I would much rather they made the main character backgrounds have impact in the story even just a little. The guild mechant back story could get you a slight discount very CERTIN merchants if they were also conected to the guild, maybe access to certain items not available to others. Certainly picking the Noble background should give you more dialogue options whenever you're talking to someone your character thinks should care, like maybe at the tollhouse or with the flaming fists (leaving out spoilers).
On one of my playthroughs I picked Githyanki with a noble background and Lae'zel still talked down to me constantly, just seemed kinda jarring. Seems like a wasted opportunity is all.
Posted By: nation Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 05:10 PM
i probly wont choose to play as origin characters and while i dont mind the concept, i just wish that i didnt feel that my own custom character was so bland, disconnected, or unimportant in comparison from a mechanical gameplay perspective. ive posted this before, but i feel like custom pcs just arent tied or significant to the bg3 narrative - the whole story feels like it could function with my custom pc never surviving the ship crash, as all the origin characters (and apparently a number of other npcs) also need to resolve the tadpole narrative (even if its not as time sensitive as we are led to believe during the prologue/early gameplay) as well as their own personal backstory plot which the custom pc characters dont even have game mechanics for (at least from what ive seen in ea so far).

my impression of dnd was always to create my own unique character and go from there as i was never much a fan of playing using dm progenerated character sheets which is what the origin characters feel like. even more so, if feels like bg3 is much more heavily programmed/weighted to mechanically interact with the dm generated origin characters than the custom pcs, which i suppose can be understandable from a game development standpoint, but it can be frustrating as someone whom prefers to make my own character instead of using someone elses character sheet.

related, ive seen other posts in the forums requesting the ability to customize the origin characters or companions on either creation or recruitment, and while i think that leveling post lvl 1 the player should be allowed to select feats, ability increases, proficiencies, multiclass, etc for recruitable characters as they prefer, being able to fully change classes, ability scores, proficiencies, etc. for these origin characters at creation doesnt seem like a good game design and a waste of already applied resources. why would larian, after having their writers create these unique origin characters and devoting time and resources incorporating these characters to fit within the bg3 narrative, then turn around and allow players to change all their development choices? idk, as someone that doesnt see real rationale for such a game mechanic (particularly considering the other common feedback topics here that id rather be given attention) it would just frustrate me and somewhat reinforce my impression that larian's vision of bg3 doesnt really align with what i was expecting for the IP, which is fine - they are the game studio, but also makes me wonder what larian really intends to do with ea and the community feedback - ex is ea just general balance tweaking and class/mechanic implementation or will some more 'significant' topics cited in the forums like party lock and size, combat balance, camera/party controls, act/narrative progression, overall custom character experience/immersion, inventory clutter/management, dice roll tweaks/ui, improved/interactive character sheet, camp location and rest mechanics, etc also be implemented? im pulling for larian and bg3, i just hope we learn more in the next big update
Posted By: CMF Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 06:54 PM
All the origin/companion stories are, are side quests.

The main quest (the game) happens regardless of what character you choose to play or group with.

In the older BG games, you had templates with stats/names/and if I remember a generic story assigned in the bio....so those are basically origin stories...except in those games they did not tie in side quests based on the characters...if anything the older bg games were lacking in diversity and uniqueness of the main character even more so than bg3....as EVERY character you made was the adopted ward of some great wizard who gets thrown into the mix and is someone special....

At least now you are some random person thrown into the mix because you are someone special (custom made) and/or you are also some warlock who lost your village as a boy and made a devil's pact you regret, a mage who holds the end of the world in his life/death, a cleric who was spurned by one god and brooding with the opposing god, a vampire minion who is abused and spiteful and wants to free himself, a failed warrior from another plane who struggles with proving herself and being one with her people again or becoming a lone wolf and joining the rest of the world....etc....so as you do the main quest you also learn about the lore of the game unique to that character...which is supposed to create replayability, but that is subjective to each player.
Posted By: trengilly Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 07:06 PM
Originally Posted by Tarlonniel
Origin characters go in the bin with multiplayer and super-ultra-hard difficulty modes as stuff I'll never touch, and in my ideal world, Larian would've invested their time/resources elsewhere. But as long as they put out $60 worth of fun content for my custom, solo, EZ mode self, I don't care much about the rest of it. If they're passionate about these things - and if they're profitable - more power to 'em.

I'm not into origin characters either and likely won't play one . . . but a lot of people do seem to like them and I think its good for people who aren't into the effort it takes to create a character. And this will increase sales . . . which gives Lairan more money to make the game better! I actually don't think the work to make the companions also origin characters is all that much effort, not in the grand scheme of things. So I think its a win for the game overall.

Multiplayer is rare in these types of RPGs and again appeals to lots of people further expanding the player base. Its also a requirement for the D&D sandbox they plan to eventually add to the game.

As for difficulty. In the past Larian has basically had Story, Regular, and Hard modes . . . again different options is nice. I often like to up the difficulty when I do a second playthrough. One of the things I loved about the DoS games is that Hard wasn't just more hit points or damage but that encounters were designed differently, with new or additional monsters. It was a whole new play experience and brought surprise to the game even after you had played it once. I assume Larian will do the same thing again.

I give Larian a lot of credit for going outside the box and offering all these options!
Posted By: RumRunner151 Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 09:16 PM
Originally Posted by Bukke

In a different RPG with traditional companions you'd 'only' have to put in development time and resources to let you interact with the companion and experience their companion quest(s) through the eyes of the player's custom character. Basically making the player's custom character an observer to the events that happen to the companion.

The additional work refers to how Larian has to make playing as one of the origin characters interesting enough in order to justify it being an option.
This means that some dialogues will require unique options only available to that specific character. Some problems and encounters will require you to be able to handle them in a specific way that'd make sense for the character in question. Some cutscene sequences like
the dreaming sequences in BG3

will have to be recorded, written, animated, scripted and voiced just so the player can experience them - essentially making it 'game content' that exclusively is available if you picked that specific origin character. Now multiply this by every unique encounter in the game and then multiply it again for every origin character who gets unique interactions. It quickly adds up to a lot of extra time and resources. What the people you're referring to are concerned about is whether or not this is a sound investment since they'd rather have the time spent developing or refining other aspects of the game.


Thank you for the explanation!
Posted By: Divine Star Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 10:51 PM
I'm honestly not a fan of playing premade characters. Gripes aside, I'd most likely give Asterion and Shadowheart a try. Their stories seem interesting.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 11:28 PM
For a single player experience I think it is a bad design - having companions be “player’s equal” creates narrative issues. And while Bioware’s “chosen one the leader” trope got pretty stale throughout the years, so far Larian’s approach with vague protagonist didn’t work for me so far (mainly D:OS2. I am judging BG3 via gameplay videos due to my hardware limitations).

For coop though, it’s brilliant. Companions being playable means coop players can drop in&out.
Posted By: Sozz Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/11/20 11:53 PM
I like having a well written character either as a companion or as the MC, playing a premade character means you have a better chance of getting that. The only issue that I see really arising from the multiple main character design choice is that it runs the risk of compounding either poor or uneven writing. There are some companions in the old Baldur's Gate games that were very underwritten compared to the others; same for DOS:II, not all the origin stories were as engaging as the others.
Posted By: CMF Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 12/11/20 01:02 AM
Originally Posted by Wormerine
For a single player experience I think it is a bad design - having companions be “player’s equal” creates narrative issues. And while Bioware’s “chosen one the leader” trope got pretty stale throughout the years, so far Larian’s approach with vague protagonist didn’t work for me so far (mainly D:OS2. I am judging BG3 via gameplay videos due to my hardware limitations).

For coop though, it’s brilliant. Companions being playable means coop players can drop in&out.


Why does having multiple important stories integrated together crate narrative issues? Is it because we are programmed to love and follow a single hero and there has to be a solitary leader figure that pulls everyone forward through the story? Why can't there be a team of equally important and different characters and the team as a whole is the "hero" that pulls the world through the problems and saves the day. I am loath to use this example because I think superheroes are played out....but who is the hero in the avengers? Is it Captain America? Iron Man? Thor? Dr Strange? Antman? Blackwidow? Hulk? Nick Fury? (not Hawkeye though..... :p )

This became a plot point and a struggle in itself, as the team dynamics had conflicts on what they felt was important. Hell even the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles had conflicts on who is the leader, but they heavy handedly pointed at Leonardo for the most part.

So in this game/story there are all equally important characters that can influence the story in various ways, and while you are the defacto "protagonist" that drives the story forward you are not necessarily the most important one or the hero, or the special. This is an acceptable story arc and has been used as the "bystander" to greatness before, but we are more than a bystander,

Yet we don't have to be the "lone avenger of super heroic manliness second coming of what ever deity figure destined to save the world and be revered by all and infinitely charismatic unifier of badassery"...yet it seems that is what people want to see in stories...which I feel is somewhat shallow (sorry).

Now are the companion stories compelling enough or just hamfistedly put in the game and ultimately meaningless? Maybe, we will find out. Some may be more interesting than others.
Posted By: AlanC9 Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 12/11/20 02:27 AM
I don't have any problem playing a character who doesn't have some sort of amazing backstory, but is instead a more-or-less normal person who got caught up in typical FR craziness by accident.
Posted By: Quietwulf Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 12/11/20 05:59 AM
It feels like an attempt to straddle the two kinds of RPG's we've seen over the last decade;

On the one side you've got Mass Effect and the Witcher series, where you have a main character that very much has their own identity and story.

On the other you've got Baldurs Gate 1/2, Dragon Age 1, where you're character is a blank slate to be filled in.

I think both styles of games can be enjoyable, but I do recognise you're making some pretty big compromises in story telling to put BOTH into the same game.

I think they're spreading themselves a little thin to be honest. It's going to be hard to try and make easy of the playthroughs unique and interesting.

They tried to some extent with DoS2, with each character having a few unique dialogue options and quest events that set them apart, but I never felt much desire to
play the game from their point of view. In fact, a lot of the personality and character was often stripped away when the player took control of the characters.

I understand what they're trying to achieve, but yeah.. I think it's a very ambitious feature and difficult to do well without spreading yourself thin.
Posted By: Abits Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 12/11/20 06:15 AM
Originally Posted by Quietwulf
It feels like an attempt to straddle the two kinds of RPG's we've seen over the last decade;

On the one side you've got Mass Effect and the Witcher series, where you have a main character that very much has their own identity and story.

On the other you've got Baldurs Gate 1/2, Dragon Age 1, where you're character is a blank slate to be filled in.

I think both styles of games can be enjoyable, but I do recognise you're making some pretty big compromises in story telling to put BOTH into the same game.

I think they're spreading themselves a little thin to be honest. It's going to be hard to try and make easy of the playthroughs unique and interesting.

They tried to some extent with DoS2, with each character having a few unique dialogue options and quest events that set them apart, but I never felt much desire to
play the game from their point of view. In fact, a lot of the personality and character was often stripped away when the player took control of the characters.

I understand what they're trying to achieve, but yeah.. I think it's a very ambitious feature and difficult to do well without spreading yourself thin.

This. I feel like more casual gamers like the origin system very much, because they are more used to it (especially if they play a lot of other genres of video games, which are mostly with one very distinct main character)
Posted By: N7Greenfire Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 12/11/20 06:25 AM
I could go either way on it tbh. I love making custom characters, but Astarion really speaks to me so ill definitely do q run with him.
Posted By: 1varangian Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 12/11/20 01:41 PM
To me it's really simple.

Why would I ever play as an origin character? I can have them as companions and experience their story that way.

This isn't the Witcher which is literally focused around a certain character.
I don't like the way origins characters make you feel like your created character isn't as interesting or cool. I would rather they just be companions and not be made to feel like I have to play an origins character (like in DOS2) because they got all the flavor and a bigger budget. If Larian gave as much love to created characters and didn't make them feel like empty-headed sex dolls, then maybe this wouldn't be a problem but that would take a lot of resources and I don't think they'll bother.
Posted By: Minsc1122 Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 12/11/20 05:15 PM
Most of the people pick origin, because it gives more "features", than making your own "main" character.
Posted By: nation Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 12/11/20 05:48 PM
Originally Posted by Minsc1122
Most of the people pick origin, because it gives more "features", than making your own "main" character.
has larian posted somewhere that most ppl pick origin characters? bc my read on the forums is that most ppl will play origin characters 'if theyre there' but would prefer playing and making their own 'main' characters, particularly if the 'main' charactacter got some of the 'features' that seem to be limited only to origin characters, which i think is the core issue of the origin characters v custom pc in that the custom character doesnt have access to the same gameplay mechanics or have their own personal/unique plot hooks/storyline when compared to the origin characters.

admittedly im biased here bc i dont think its a good game design for a franchise (BG/dnd) that espouses unique/'create your own' character creation where you play your own story/adventure - why would i want to play as a dev written dmpc? if the origin characters were just fleshed out npcs i wouldnt have that much an issue, but i dont understand the insistence and writers/resources being allocated by larian for upwards of 8 origin characters and it just seems like a larian hold-over from dos1/2 (as is evident in other gameplay mechanics). frankly, the more time spent on origin character integration by larian makes me think its less likely that we will see 6 party slots or a large variety of 'fleshed out' non tadpole npc companions, but hope to be proved wrong
Posted By: Grantig Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 12/11/20 06:09 PM
I had hoped not to be forced to play a premade char just to get some background and personality.
Especially as I don't much like the companions aka origin chars.

It would have been nice to have a couple of available backgroundstories of your created char that actually matter in the game.
Even MMOs like GW2 managed to get you some personal quests based on your background.
Posted By: trengilly Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 12/11/20 07:47 PM
Originally Posted by Grantig
I had hoped not to be forced to play a premade char just to get some background and personality.
Especially as I don't much like the companions aka origin chars.

It would have been nice to have a couple of available backgroundstories of your created char that actually matter in the game.
Even MMOs like GW2 managed to get you some personal quests based on your background.

The whole point of a custom character is that you make up your own background and personality. 😊 But yes I agree it would be really nice if Larian would add dialogue options and a sidequest or two that relate to the Background you select in the character creator.

However an argument can be made that forcing ANY events based on preselected backgrounds/personality limits a persons role-playing options. Someone might pick the Noble background but what Larian does with that might conflict with what the player was imagining.
Posted By: frequentic Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 13/11/20 09:36 AM
Originally Posted by Dexai
Me, I favour the way DA:O did it. It gave you a place and grounded the character in the world without impairing your own characterisation of them. That's the balance I'd like to see more games strike and developers explore.


Originally Posted by Nicottia

To that I say, yes you could do it: https://i.imgur.com/FmZpQWA.jpg

Yet not a single one of these characters was an origin a'la Larian creations. They are just templates for you to pick from if you can't be arsed to come up with your own.


This sums it up pretty well for me. I would prefer a mix between character templates, for those who just want to get into the game, and possibly backstories like DA:O. Character templates was also found in the early Fallout games and Wasteland use them as well. As for the DA:O backstories they were also acting as tutorials and gave you more of a connection to your character then if you would've started your game in Ostagar.

In relation to what I've stated above, I could potentially love origin characters, but it would require a bit of work. Take Shadowheart as an example. Imagine starting her playthrough soon after her "amnesia" (trying to avoid using spoiler tags), and instead starting the tutorial in a pre-Nautiloid setting. The time on the Nautiloid will still be spent in her pod, in the shape of a cut-scene, and then you get to control her again at the beach. Wyll could have a similar prologue, but with strong focus on his background specifics and how he struggles with the choices of the pact. Lae'zel could be as is but instead jump down on a randomly generated character instead and chose to trust it or to kick it off the Nautiloid.

My point being: If I am introduced to interesting characters and if I'm also given insight in their backstory and motivations, then I can definitely seeing myself enjoying it plenty. Preferably I would also be able to make at least minor adjustments to their kit and stat points, with the exception of Wyll and with certain RP restrictions considering their racial background and backstory.
Posted By: qiqi Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 13/11/20 10:16 AM
Originally Posted by Quietwulf
It feels like an attempt to straddle the two kinds of RPG's we've seen over the last decade;

On the one side you've got Mass Effect and the Witcher series, where you have a main character that very much has their own identity and story.

On the other you've got Baldurs Gate 1/2, Dragon Age 1, where you're character is a blank slate to be filled in.

I think both styles of games can be enjoyable, but I do recognise you're making some pretty big compromises in story telling to put BOTH into the same game.

I think they're spreading themselves a little thin to be honest. It's going to be hard to try and make easy of the playthroughs unique and interesting.

They tried to some extent with DoS2, with each character having a few unique dialogue options and quest events that set them apart, but I never felt much desire to
play the game from their point of view. In fact, a lot of the personality and character was often stripped away when the player took control of the characters.

I understand what they're trying to achieve, but yeah.. I think it's a very ambitious feature and difficult to do well without spreading yourself thin.


This is also where I stand on it. I enjoy both kinds of games but prefer blank slate protags for my RPGs. In theory, I don't have a problem with Origin characters but when I played D:OS 2 I kept feeling like having both kinds of protags present just limited everything. And so I fear it will be the same with BG3. Game development only has so many resources. I just feel like trying to make sure all of the Origin characters have their custom options and content is going to detract from the custom player experience.

But, I would like to be proven wrong. And with how much development has gone into the Origin system already, with the voice acting and coding that dataminers can find, it's not like it's going to go away. I've accepted that it's a done deal. So all that's left for the devs is to do a good job :P
Posted By: Zarna Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 13/11/20 11:05 AM
Originally Posted by qiqi

I just feel like trying to make sure all of the Origin characters have their custom options and content is going to detract from the custom player experience.

I feel the main thing detracting from the custom player experience is that many people are not used to filling in all the details themselves. It isn't hard to make a backstory that is interesting, people just have to be creative. I am glad the companions are going to be unique, it is way better than Skyrim burden carriers and meatshields, and makes it a bit more like a DnD game.
Posted By: Bukke Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 13/11/20 11:23 AM
Based on what I've seen there's still a large amount of dialogue reactions based on your class/race/background so I'm not too concerned about custom characters being too dull.
Posted By: Uncle Lester Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 13/11/20 11:50 AM
Originally Posted by Bukke
Based on what I've seen there's still a large amount of dialogue reactions based on your class/race/background so I'm not too concerned about custom characters being too dull.


Are there actually background options/reactions? I remember Larian stating that they intended to do that but decided against it since backgrounds would be different for each player anyway (one noble from another noble).
Posted By: Zarna Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 13/11/20 12:12 PM
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
[quote=Bukke]
Are there actually background options/reactions? I remember Larian stating that they intended to do that but decided against it since backgrounds would be different for each player anyway (one noble from another noble).

Haven't seen any for Criminal, Urchin, or Soldier at all, pretty sure there are none for the rest. Glad they decided against it, there are hundreds of different characters that could be made from one background.
I really want to play as Lae'zel, Shadowheart and Astarion. The horny wizard and the horny warlock not so much.
Posted By: Nyanko Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 13/11/20 12:23 PM
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
I really want to play as Lae'zel, Shadowheart and Astarion. The horny wizard and the horny warlock not so much.


I am worried playing as an origin character will have the effect of missing lots of their lines in cinematics. And I like Shadowheart's voice so much I would rather have her as a companion for this very reason.
Posted By: Bukke Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 13/11/20 12:32 PM
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
I really want to play as Lae'zel, Shadowheart and Astarion. The horny wizard and the horny warlock not so much.


I am worried playing as an origin character will have the effect of missing lots of their lines in cinematics. And I like Shadowheart's voice so much I would rather have her as a companion for this very reason.

Personally I think I'm going to save origin character playthroughs for subsequent playthroughs because of this. I'll treat it as if I'm experiencing the same story [the companion's story] but directly through their eyes.
Posted By: fallenj Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 13/11/20 05:11 PM
Originally Posted by pinklily
Genuinely curious since I see a lot of people complain about it. I don't hate the concept but I never see myself playing the origins and I kind of wish they would redirect resources to making the PC more interesting.


Presuming it's a popular feature since it made a return. I know my bro played multiple play through's solo/co-op in DOS2 as origin characters.

Playing as one of those characters reduces the amount of replays if you want to see companion stories.

I'm not a fan but removing playable options from a game seems dumb...
Posted By: Bukke Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 13/11/20 05:18 PM
Originally Posted by fallenj
Originally Posted by pinklily
Genuinely curious since I see a lot of people complain about it. I don't hate the concept but I never see myself playing the origins and I kind of wish they would redirect resources to making the PC more interesting.


Presuming it's a popular feature since it made a return. I know my bro played multiple play through's solo/co-op in DOS2 as origin characters.

Playing as one of those characters reduces the amount of replays if you want to see companion stories.

I'm not a fan but removing playable options from a game seems dumb...

FWIW I played through DOS2 as an origin character precisely because of
Quote

Playing as one of those characters reduces the amount of replays if you want to see companion stories.

and all things considered I did find it to be an interesting experience since you're given information, chat options and NPC interactions that you don't see if you bring the same character along as a regular companion.
That being said I'll definitely play as a custom character for my first full playthrough of BG3.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 13/11/20 06:16 PM
Originally Posted by CMF

Why does having multiple important stories integrated together crate narrative issues? Is it because we are programmed to love and follow a single hero and there has to be a solitary leader figure that pulls everyone forward through the story? Why can't there be a team of equally important and different characters and the team as a whole is the "hero" that pulls the world through the problems and saves the day.

The issue I have is the execution, not concept itself. As the only human player I have influence over what we do, where we go, how we do things. As such my PC is the leader of the group when I play in singleplayer. Narrative and gameplay need to work alongside each other. Creating NPCs which would feel like independent selves with goals, agendas and equal to us influence would be quite a feat, and could be interesting. But it is not a story that singleplayer D:OS2 (and I assume BG3) tells.

I don’t know how well will BG3 fair in making companions feel like independent, thinking individuals, but D:OS2 was a failure in that regard. None of the companions felt good to me (my full D:OS2 feedback). A way, in which we interact with NPC and human players is simply too different. You want to design an RPG were our PC is a part of a group, rather then a leader - that’s great, and interesting, but it needs to be designed differently. As it is, we have a complete control over our companions actions, and even decide what they get to say. Bioware approach solved this dissonance by putting the player in a role around which the game revolved. Whenever you were Bhaalspawn, Raven, Gray Warden, Spectre etc. - it made sense that companions would follow you. They might have their demands, and leave you, but otherwise, they were under your command.

D:OS2 didn’t do that - companions were created to be inhabited by other players with their own wants, and without coop buddies, companions just felt empty. And unlike other RPG, D:OS2 had nothing to explain in narratively. D:OS2 companions will neatly fall in line, because you are the only real player, even though narratively it makes little sense. Imagine ending of BG2:ToB where everyone is the child of Bhaal. Why are you the one to ascend? In BG2 other candidates (Imoen, Sarevok) have reasons not to contest you. In D:OS2 they don’t, because they are supposed to contest you - you are equals. But they won’t, because you are the only player, therefore the game revolves around you. (I know it’s possible for companions not to ally with you, but it’s unlikely they won’t and if they do, it sucks). D:OS2 companions have good moments, but those are traditional ones - helping them solve their own side adventure. Whenever companion’s wants cross player wants it’s just doesn’t work.

On a side note, I didn’t like playing as origin either - I am not blind to benefits of pre-defined characters, but I felt distanced by Lohse’s or Grey Wolf’s definition (those were the two I tried myself) - not defined enough to be engaging, yet knowing NPCs and things that I don’t.

So yeah, good system if you play with a buddy and your attention is directed at your friends, with PCs being little more then player avatars. For single player world building and storytelling - just a bad system, leading to weaker protagonist and companions.
Posted By: Drath Malorn Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 13/11/20 07:43 PM
Originally Posted by pinklily
Genuinely curious since I see a lot of people complain about it. I don't hate the concept but I never see myself playing the origins and I kind of wish they would redirect resources to making the PC more interesting.

On the one hand, I feel that all I have heard so far is only some general gist. Basically, you will have special scenes giving you a bit more insight into the character's backstory and personal quest. Though you should learn most of what there is to know about a character if you travel with them as a companion in your party, I would hope.
On the other hand, I'm in the camp of people who have custom characters in mind already, each with their backstory, personality, etc. I have played the old Infinity Engine games, and even some TT RPG back in the days. So whenever I can create my own characters, I do.
I doubt I'll ever play as an Origin character.

But many video game RPGs, from Final Fantasy to Zelda to The Witcher, have you play as pre-set character X or Y or Z. I can see many players going for that.

Larian seems to aim to cater to both audiences. In a sense, why not. So long as they don't overspend resources into a feature that half the players will use, when they could spend more time working on things all the players will use (the UI, the writing, etc).
To me, playing with a premade character is anathema to the entire purpose of playing an RPG with custom character creation.
Posted By: fallenj Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 13/11/20 10:47 PM
Originally Posted by Bukke
Originally Posted by fallenj
Originally Posted by pinklily
Genuinely curious since I see a lot of people complain about it. I don't hate the concept but I never see myself playing the origins and I kind of wish they would redirect resources to making the PC more interesting.


Presuming it's a popular feature since it made a return. I know my bro played multiple play through's solo/co-op in DOS2 as origin characters.

Playing as one of those characters reduces the amount of replays if you want to see companion stories.

I'm not a fan but removing playable options from a game seems dumb...

FWIW I played through DOS2 as an origin character precisely because of
Quote

Playing as one of those characters reduces the amount of replays if you want to see companion stories.

and all things considered I did find it to be an interesting experience since you're given information, chat options and NPC interactions that you don't see if you bring the same character along as a regular companion.
That being said I'll definitely play as a custom character for my first full playthrough of BG3.


Same, waiting to play my halfling bard for sure, but that's me.
Posted By: VincentNZ Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 14/11/20 08:21 AM
As it is obviously something that worked in previous DOS titles, I see the reasoning to have them in this game. I like the idea that in another playthrough you get some more insight into the character, that now plays the protagonist role.

However this is a feature without benefit for me at all. I rarely do full playthroughs again and I also generally do not change my playstyle (ranged stealth) too much either, so there is little incentive to choose, say Lae'Zel. I also usually make a character sort of mirroring myself, so pre-build characters are especially problematic. For choosing one I get certain dialogue options and one deeper quest. That is definitely not enough for me to justify new playthroughs outside of my chosen character.
In order to make me interested they would do something like Tyranny, where every choice I make in the game has grave consequences and significantly alters my playthrough. And even there I only played through the game once. Also, the writing of most companions right now is very poor, as is the interaction within the group, barely existant. What good is a feature when it does not significantly alter the relationships either?

So I wonder how much is really down to players being able to experience a slightly altered playthrough and if not having to mess with the character generator is not the biggest incentive of pre-made characters. So you save 5 minutes in the C-gen and get more fluff, over meticulously creating your own character that adds nothing (so far) of story value. I can see how that is the key factor here.

Optimally you would want a fleshed out experience for both the options and a form of interaction within the group so that you do not get the feeling the additions of Origin characters is irrelevant and that you do not miss out anything but the personal POV, when playing a custom character. So far I do not see how they can deliver on even one of the approaches.
Posted By: Soul-Scar Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 14/11/20 08:45 AM
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
To me, playing with a premade character is anathema to the entire purpose of playing an RPG with custom character creation.


This ^^^.

One of the worst flaws in DOS2 was the "origin" system. To remove the "roleplay" from a character detached from any story elements i.e. custom character, the origin characters needed to be unversally appeling which they weren't. This is fine for the speedrunners and meta-builders but utterly trash for roleplaying. Some people like to add a bit of their own imagination and backstory to a RPG.

I dunno, to each their own I quess. It seems superfluous adding a bunch of origins for the sake of a small side quest or two. Better to fill the characters with personallity and reactions to the protagonists personal contribution rather than convoluted story elements that require multiple story permutations per chartacter/race/class/god....Seems like making alot of work for yourself especially if only a small number of people will even bother with origins.

It kind of worked in DOS2 I don't see it being as popular in BG.
Posted By: EMC_V Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 14/11/20 10:58 AM
I would play a custom character and I would like to see the option of choosing one "origin"/back story like in DA:O so I have quests and story arcs related to that. Having the game world react to the custom character story is interesting.

For me, Origin characters are fine as companions. But I won't play as them. If it goes like DOS, I tried two, get bored and stopped playing. DOS2 was obviously meant to play as an origin character since they have a lot more content than custom character, yet, it wasn't engaging to me.

As for the numbers, if with much less content than "origin characters" people still choose to play custom, then what people would have choose if custom characters would have had the same amount of quests, dialogs related to the background, etc? And what was the number break among the origins? Because if some origins were played by less than 10% of players, then maybe investing so heavily in having so many origins instead of just companions might not be as logical as investing in doing custom characters right. Or more companions.

In DOS2 people choose between a custom character who only have the main plot and an origin character that they could customize, that offered then main plot+ personal quest. Not even choices.

So maybe, they shoudl offer small stories to pick from at character creation and that are related to quest and world interaction. The custom character story that exist in my head doesn't provide interaction with the game world and I like the choices I made on character creation acknowledged. Is nice to have options as a wizard (I suspect they are there for Gale XD). IT would be even nicer to have scenes, dialogs and a personal quest for a custom character.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 14/11/20 01:34 PM
Originally Posted by EMC_V
I would play a custom character and I would like to see the option of choosing one "origin"/back story like in DA:O so I have quests and story arcs related to that. Having the game world react to the custom character story is interesting.

Yes, though “Origins” from DA:O were something completely different. While DA:O has typical Bioware “overriding identity” in the form of the watcher, the “origin” gave us context to where we came from, what’s our race background in this world. You will recognise NPCs later in the game because of interactions you had with them in the origin story.

Larian’s “origins” don’t do that. If you pick an origin you get no introduction as to were they come from. Your character will know things and recognise NPCs which you won’t. I find that off putting.
Posted By: guy Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 14/11/20 01:48 PM
Origins vote in the negative - don't waste time with it.

Focus gameplay, custom character creation.

vote up for allowing to CUSTOMIZE your companions at creation.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 14/11/20 05:04 PM
Considering that the "Origin" system continues in BG3, you might suspect that players enjoyed using it in DoS2.
The argument that the custom characters were shallow doesn't make much sense in this case. Most people didn't even know it when they first played it, but the system would still have to be popular (most people don't even finish games, not to mention playing a few times.).
If it were otherwise, Larian would not waste resources to introduce a mechanic that not many people like.

Could use some statistics from DoS2 how many people finished the game as a custom character. It may turn out that the "origin" system may have been more popular than we think.
Posted By: guy Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 14/11/20 05:57 PM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Considering that the "Origin" system continues in BG3, you might suspect that players enjoyed using it in DoS2.
The argument that the custom characters were shallow doesn't make much sense in this case. Most people didn't even know it when they first played it, but the system would still have to be popular (most people don't even finish games, not to mention playing a few times.).
If it were otherwise, Larian would not waste resources to introduce a mechanic that not many people like.

Could use some statistics from DoS2 how many people finished the game as a custom character. It may turn out that the "origin" system may have been more popular than we think.


This isn't DoS2.

Larian is falling back on a system they already developed. Thats what big game developers do.

DoS has different source material than BG. Just because it seems to have worked well for one source material does not mean it will work well for a different source material.

In addition, just the title itself will be attracting a player base from decades ago.

I just do not see origins working well with this source material unless it opened up entire new start areas and game play.

Neat little easter egg. But not the meat and potatoes.

spells. races. classes. map. npc interactions.

will the druids give different items to druid player characters? will tieflings let tiefling player characters join their group? etc etc.

and MORE companions. Halson the druid good spot to join. minthara. a few others.
Even getting that smart ogre to join your party.
There are better things the devs could focus on, that the player base would go absolutely enjoy more.

There should be more focus on that, and less on origins of very limited companions.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 14/11/20 06:46 PM
Originally Posted by guy
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Considering that the "Origin" system continues in BG3, you might suspect that players enjoyed using it in DoS2.
The argument that the custom characters were shallow doesn't make much sense in this case. Most people didn't even know it when they first played it, but the system would still have to be popular (most people don't even finish games, not to mention playing a few times.).
If it were otherwise, Larian would not waste resources to introduce a mechanic that not many people like.

Could use some statistics from DoS2 how many people finished the game as a custom character. It may turn out that the "origin" system may have been more popular than we think.


This isn't DoS2.

Larian is falling back on a system they already developed. Thats what big game developers do.

DoS has different source material than BG. Just because it seems to have worked well for one source material does not mean it will work well for a different source material.

In addition, just the title itself will be attracting a player base from decades ago.

I just do not see origins working well with this source material unless it opened up entire new start areas and game play.

Neat little easter egg. But not the meat and potatoes.

spells. races. classes. map. npc interactions.

will the druids give different items to druid player characters? will tieflings let tiefling player characters join their group? etc etc.

and MORE companions. Halson the druid good spot to join. minthara. a few others.
Even getting that smart ogre to join your party.
There are better things the devs could focus on, that the player base would go absolutely enjoy more.

There should be more focus on that, and less on origins of very limited companions.


Why shouldn't this work for BG3?

The last thing the game needs is a bunch of poorly written companions.
Posted By: Innateagle Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 14/11/20 06:47 PM
Haven't played Divinity 2, tried a couple of times but something just turns me off, so don't know too much about the system even though it doesn't appeal particularly to me, but that aside it seems like a pretty huge undertaking to take up in a fully voice acted game. Somewhat wasteful too, all things considered. I mean, i think even from the most casual of casual players perspective the appeal of playing a premade character or a custom one must be around the same. And i very much doubt that kind of crowd would even ever play the story as different origins.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 14/11/20 06:57 PM
Originally Posted by Innateagle
Haven't played Divinity 2, tried a couple of times but something just turns me off, so don't know too much about the system even though it doesn't appeal particularly to me, but that aside it seems like a pretty huge undertaking to take up in a fully voice acted game. Somewhat wasteful too, all things considered. I mean, i think even from the most casual of casual players perspective the appeal of playing a premade character or a custom one must be around the same. And i very much doubt that kind of crowd would even ever play the story as different origins.



A lot of people like to play predefined characters.
Such characters usually have a better connection to the game world.
Games like witcher and me are popular for a reason.
In the case of custom characters, writing a story of their own for them is difficult because it would require them to have some kind of "frame".
It would be nice to have a prology like in DAO, but some people will complain that the game takes away their freedom.
Posted By: guy Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 14/11/20 07:03 PM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by guy
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Considering that the "Origin" system continues in BG3, you might suspect that players enjoyed using it in DoS2.
The argument that the custom characters were shallow doesn't make much sense in this case. Most people didn't even know it when they first played it, but the system would still have to be popular (most people don't even finish games, not to mention playing a few times.).
If it were otherwise, Larian would not waste resources to introduce a mechanic that not many people like.

Could use some statistics from DoS2 how many people finished the game as a custom character. It may turn out that the "origin" system may have been more popular than we think.


This isn't DoS2.

Larian is falling back on a system they already developed. Thats what big game developers do.

DoS has different source material than BG. Just because it seems to have worked well for one source material does not mean it will work well for a different source material.

In addition, just the title itself will be attracting a player base from decades ago.

I just do not see origins working well with this source material unless it opened up entire new start areas and game play.

Neat little easter egg. But not the meat and potatoes.

spells. races. classes. map. npc interactions.

will the druids give different items to druid player characters? will tieflings let tiefling player characters join their group? etc etc.

and MORE companions. Halson the druid good spot to join. minthara. a few others.
Even getting that smart ogre to join your party.
There are better things the devs could focus on, that the player base would go absolutely enjoy more.

There should be more focus on that, and less on origins of very limited companions.


Why shouldn't this work for BG3?

The last thing the game needs is a bunch of poorly written companions.



Don't be daft. BG, and d and d in general, is about free play and bekng able to make choices, and being rewarded for knowing the lore and the choices to make.

Also, compare bg3 companions to companions from BG 1 and 2.
Can. Minc. Dynaheir. Jaheira. Even a hidden cleric you get by using stone to flesh on a random statue.. and a drow cleric lots of story there. And a winged elf that had her wings cut off. And a druid werewolf.. I can keep going.
The current bg3 campanions are dry. Cliche. All are tortured and whiney.

Halson would make a amazing companion. And Volo. Imagjne him a companion. And minthara.
But chars being forced to join because of tadpoles and so are always whining? How is that consider good character development?
Posted By: guy Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 14/11/20 07:04 PM
Originally Posted by Innateagle
Haven't played Divinity 2, tried a couple of times but something just turns me off, so don't know too much about the system even though it doesn't appeal particularly to me, but that aside it seems like a pretty huge undertaking to take up in a fully voice acted game. Somewhat wasteful too, all things considered. I mean, i think even from the most casual of casual players perspective the appeal of playing a premade character or a custom one must be around the same. And i very much doubt that kind of crowd would even ever play the story as different origins.

That too.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 14/11/20 07:16 PM
Originally Posted by guy
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by guy
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Considering that the "Origin" system continues in BG3, you might suspect that players enjoyed using it in DoS2.
The argument that the custom characters were shallow doesn't make much sense in this case. Most people didn't even know it when they first played it, but the system would still have to be popular (most people don't even finish games, not to mention playing a few times.).
If it were otherwise, Larian would not waste resources to introduce a mechanic that not many people like.

Could use some statistics from DoS2 how many people finished the game as a custom character. It may turn out that the "origin" system may have been more popular than we think.


This isn't DoS2.

Larian is falling back on a system they already developed. Thats what big game developers do.

DoS has different source material than BG. Just because it seems to have worked well for one source material does not mean it will work well for a different source material.

In addition, just the title itself will be attracting a player base from decades ago.

I just do not see origins working well with this source material unless it opened up entire new start areas and game play.

Neat little easter egg. But not the meat and potatoes.

spells. races. classes. map. npc interactions.

will the druids give different items to druid player characters? will tieflings let tiefling player characters join their group? etc etc.

and MORE companions. Halson the druid good spot to join. minthara. a few others.
Even getting that smart ogre to join your party.
There are better things the devs could focus on, that the player base would go absolutely enjoy more.

There should be more focus on that, and less on origins of very limited companions.


Why shouldn't this work for BG3?

The last thing the game needs is a bunch of poorly written companions.



Don't be daft. BG, and d and d in general, is about free play and bekng able to make choices, and being rewarded for knowing the lore and the choices to make.

Also, compare bg3 companions to companions from BG 1 and 2.
Can. Minc. Dynaheir. Jaheira. Even a hidden cleric you get by using stone to flesh on a random statue.. and a drow cleric lots of story there. And a winged elf that had her wings cut off. And a druid werewolf.. I can keep going.
The current bg3 campanions are dry. Cliche. All are tortured and whiney.

Halson would make a amazing companion. And Volo. Imagjne him a companion. And minthara.
But chars being forced to join because of tadpoles and so are always whining? How is that consider good character development?



As for BG1, most companions had virtually no history after they joined.
BG2 was a huge improvement over BG1 but even there were extremely mediocre characters like Cernd, Haer'Dalis and Valygar.
In the current games, 5-8 characters are standard (we currently know about 8 in BG3). There are rarely more of them, but then usually many of them are noticeably worse written.
Posted By: guy Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 14/11/20 07:22 PM
and none of them were forced to be companions.

Yes, there were a few with bad backgrounds. There were more with good backgrounds.

Bg3 so far. All companions have tadpoles. Half dont want anything to do with you.

All railroaded and forced to join you because of tadpole.

Back to the topic of origins.

In my opinion. Better approach is to treat it as bg2 did. Background unlocked through conversation and rp with characters.

Making origins of companions part of the game play? No.

Especially if the plan is to only limited companions.

Instead of spending the resources for that origin play.... use the resources to add more companion, and axe the origin play.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 14/11/20 07:33 PM
Originally Posted by guy
and none of them were forced to be companions.

Yes, there were a few with bad backgrounds. There were more with good backgrounds.

Bg3 so far. All companions have tadpoles. Half dont want anything to do with you.

All railroaded and forced to join you because of tadpole.

Back to the topic of origins.

In my opinion. Better approach is to treat it as bg2 did. Background unlocked through conversation and rp with characters.

Making origins of companions part of the game play? No.

Especially if the plan is to only limited companions.

Instead of spending the resources for that origin play.... use the resources to add more companion, and axe the origin play.


Even if the characters of origin are removed. I doubt we will get more companions.
The number of companions is not a problem, 8 is a good amount (maybe 1 or 2 more will come).
The fact that out of the present companions 3 are evil (although in the case of one can argue), still we get 3 more that are good.

Since larian believes that the mechanics are worth keeping, it means that many players like it.
Deleting it because you don't like it is kinda selfish.




Posted By: guy Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 14/11/20 07:57 PM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by guy
and none of them were forced to be companions.

Yes, there were a few with bad backgrounds. There were more with good backgrounds.

Bg3 so far. All companions have tadpoles. Half dont want anything to do with you.

All railroaded and forced to join you because of tadpole.

Back to the topic of origins.

In my opinion. Better approach is to treat it as bg2 did. Background unlocked through conversation and rp with characters.

Making origins of companions part of the game play? No.

Especially if the plan is to only limited companions.

Instead of spending the resources for that origin play.... use the resources to add more companion, and axe the origin play.


Even if the characters of origin are removed. I doubt we will get more companions.
The number of companions is not a problem, 8 is a good amount (maybe 1 or 2 more will come).
The fact that out of the present companions 3 are evil (although in the case of one can argue), still we get 3 more that are good.

Since larian believes that the mechanics are worth keeping, it means that many players like it.
Deleting it because you don't like it is kinda selfish.






You are kinda one sided on this arent you?

My point is that the way the companion system is NOT good for bg.

It might work for DoS. But here? No.

The devs are using a system that they already used and are familiar with. I dont think it has anything to do with what the player base wants.

What I am saying is that the system, as it stands now, and if it goes the way they seem to be planning it, will not be interesting or engaging.

What I also brought up is that there are different approaches that would work better in this game, with the source material available.

If you want the system the devs are proposing. Fine. Your opinion. But you will also move on quickly after you get bored of the repeat content. It is not a engaging way forward.

Again. Just the title of this game is going to bring people back from decades ago, and the 5e game play will bring in a younger crowd.

Origins is a lick. There is no depth, no meat to it

More companions and companion content is a heartier meal.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 14/11/20 08:30 PM
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Could use some statistics from DoS2 how many people finished the game as a custom character. It may turn out that the "origin" system may have been more popular than we think.

That wouldn’t be very helpful though. I, for one, on both my playthroughs played as pre-made characters because a quick google revealed that custom characrters will simply be a weaker experience. Still, it doesn’t change a fact that I enjoyed neither my PCs nor companions.

Originally Posted by Rhobar121

A lot of people like to play predefined characters.
Such characters usually have a better connection to the game world.
Games like witcher and me are popular for a reason.
In the case of custom characters, writing a story of their own for them is difficult because it would require them to have some kind of "frame".

Yes, but Witcher or Mass Effect has little to do with what Larian does.

Witcher or Mass Effects work, because they are crafted around the pre-made character. There is a benefit of defining the player character, and even though Witcher or Mass Effect might put their RPG-ness into question, there are great RPGs with pre-determined character and wide range of player expression (Deus Ex, Planescape, Disco Elysium). Larian games don’t have this advantage, because they are not crafted around single PC: it’s still build around MULTIPLE “pre-defined” characters as well as custom ones. They still have “frames” overriding whatever character we play as (Godwoken in D:OS2, infected by tadpoles in BG3). Motivating the player, while allowing them for a range of characters to play as is challenging I am sure. And don’t make a mistake - blank slates are also “written”. Who you can be is always defined by devs. I just don’t think what Larian does works very well outside multiplayer matchmaking.

I know who my Geralt is. I know who my Shepard is. I also know who Liara, Garrus and Wrex are. I know who my 3 different PC is Pillars of Eternity are. I can describe Eder, Aloth and Durance. But I have no idea who Ifan is even though I played him for over 100 hours. I wasn’t able to define him, nor was I able to learn about him while playing. I don’t know who Red Prince or Sebille is... outside vignettes made for their origins.
Posted By: Innateagle Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 14/11/20 10:05 PM
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Could use some statistics from DoS2 how many people finished the game as a custom character. It may turn out that the "origin" system may have been more popular than we think.

That wouldn’t be very helpful though. I, for one, on both my playthroughs played as pre-made characters because a quick google revealed that custom characrters will simply be a weaker experience. Still, it doesn’t change a fact that I enjoyed neither my PCs nor companions.

Originally Posted by Rhobar121

A lot of people like to play predefined characters.
Such characters usually have a better connection to the game world.
Games like witcher and me are popular for a reason.
In the case of custom characters, writing a story of their own for them is difficult because it would require them to have some kind of "frame".

Yes, but Witcher or Mass Effect has little to do with what Larian does.

Witcher or Mass Effects work, because they are crafted around the pre-made character. There is a benefit of defining the player character, and even though Witcher or Mass Effect might put their RPG-ness into question, there are great RPGs with pre-determined character and wide range of player expression (Deus Ex, Planescape, Disco Elysium). Larian games don’t have this advantage, because they are not crafted around single PC: it’s still build around MULTIPLE “pre-defined” characters as well as custom ones. They still have “frames” overriding whatever character we play as (Godwoken in D:OS2, infected by tadpoles in BG3). Motivating the player, while allowing them for a range of characters to play as is challenging I am sure. And don’t make a mistake - blank slates are also “written”. Who you can be is always defined by devs. I just don’t think what Larian does works very well outside multiplayer matchmaking.

I know who my Geralt is. I know who my Shepard is. I also know who Liara, Garrus and Wrex are. I know who my 3 different PC is Pillars of Eternity are. I can describe Eder, Aloth and Durance. But I have no idea who Ifan is even though I played him for over 100 hours. I wasn’t able to define him, nor was I able to learn about him while playing. I don’t know who Red Prince or Sebille is... outside vignettes made for their origins.


There's also that, unless Larian's got unlimitied resources, one single protagonist is always gonna feel more focused and be better than 5/6/7 who need to share the spotlight. I'm sure that in DoS:2 a couple of the origins, if not more, were lackluster compared to the others. I don't wanna say it's gonna be worse here, 'cause i imagine the work required to make it all work will be way more, but eh. Usually when games spread themselves too thin they suffer in the later parts.
Posted By: DanteYoda Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/11/20 03:38 AM
I have no interest in origin characters, i make characters myself as its how D&D is designed, for me personally origin characters are a waste of dev time and assets.. (i never used them in Divinity either)

Plus the fact i kinda dislike all the origin characters immensely doesn't help.. Not one Gnome, Halfling or Dwarven character, also everything you meet is spiteful nasty and i just lost interest. For me Solasta did character creation right.
Posted By: arion Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/11/20 11:35 AM
Depends...i'm a big fan of DAO origin system(pick your character's background), but DoS\BG realization(playing the role of one of the ingame characters) just meh.
Posted By: Ari Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/11/20 11:46 AM
Might pick origin once or twice, mainly for the amusement of playing Laezel as a compassionate knight-in-shining-armor.
Posted By: Uncle Lester Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/11/20 05:29 PM
Originally Posted by Ari
Might pick origin once or twice, mainly for the amusement of playing Laezel as a compassionate knight-in-shining-armor.


Brilliant. The idea and Lae'zel's armour...
Posted By: charlarn Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/11/20 05:34 PM
I dont quite understand what origin characters have to do with Baldur's gate or D&D. Why is this one of the must-have feature of BG3?
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/11/20 05:38 PM
I only played with the Origin character mod for a short time before giving up but there is a problem with trying to subvert the story -- the conversations on ground triggers. At certain points the origin characters will make comments that the player has no control over and those comments are in line with the original design.

There are a couple with Tav as well. If you go the part of the grove where the tiefling bets you 10gp that the goblins will kill her you can find a trigger where LZ will express contempt for the weakness of the tieflings and Tav will rebuke her saying something like "lay off these are desperate refugees not fighters":

Which is probably what my Tav would have said but it annoyed me that I didn't get to choose a substantive RP option.
Posted By: fallenj Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/11/20 06:41 PM
Originally Posted by charlarn
I dont quite understand what origin characters have to do with Baldur's gate or D&D. Why is this one of the must-have feature of BG3?


Why not? Origin characters take your companions and puts them center stage, you get specific tag lines when interacting with other npcs for said character. Kind of wonder how many people are going to play Shadowheart when it goes live...

D&D has done this, off the top of my head I know there was a board game/card game that had pre-generated characters you played as.

Here, took me about a minute to search for it, youtube vid of neverwinter nights at 1:03 Create New Character or Select Premade Character

Posted By: charlarn Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/11/20 07:05 PM
Originally Posted by fallenj
Originally Posted by charlarn
I dont quite understand what origin characters have to do with Baldur's gate or D&D. Why is this one of the must-have feature of BG3?


Why not? Origin characters take your companions and puts them center stage, you get specific tag lines when interacting with other npcs for said character. Kind of wonder how many people are going to play Shadowheart when it goes live...

D&D has done this, off the top of my head I know there was a board game/card game that had pre-generated characters you played as.

Here, took me about a minute to search for it, youtube vid of neverwinter nights at 1:03 Create New Character or Select Premade Character





Those arent anything like the origin characters in BG3 since they dont get their own stories. They're the equivalent of clicking "venture forth" with the default character build.
Posted By: fallenj Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/11/20 07:33 PM
Originally Posted by charlarn
Originally Posted by fallenj
Originally Posted by charlarn
I dont quite understand what origin characters have to do with Baldur's gate or D&D. Why is this one of the must-have feature of BG3?


Why not? Origin characters take your companions and puts them center stage, you get specific tag lines when interacting with other npcs for said character. Kind of wonder how many people are going to play Shadowheart when it goes live...

D&D has done this, off the top of my head I know there was a board game/card game that had pre-generated characters you played as.

Here, took me about a minute to search for it, youtube vid of neverwinter nights at 1:03 Create New Character or Select Premade Character





Those arent anything like the origin characters in BG3 since they dont get their own stories. They're the equivalent of clicking "venture forth" with the default character build.


Arent? are not?? they are premade characters, the base of the argument is really why play a character premade vs making your own. then slap on additional features to those premade characters.
because the point of a role playing game is to make a character and develop it by roleplaying it in the face of challenges.

origin characters remove all of the agency by having everything pre determined.

hell, did you play Temple of Elemental Evil with the default party or did you make your own?
Posted By: Maerd Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/11/20 09:50 PM
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
because the point of a role playing game is to make a character and develop it by roleplaying it in the face of challenges.

origin characters remove all of the agency by having everything pre determined.

hell, did you play Temple of Elemental Evil with the default party or did you make your own?


If you don't want to play origin character, nobody forces you to do so. Just make a character you like and go for it. What's the point of your whining?
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/11/20 10:20 PM
Originally Posted by fallenj

Arent? are not?? they are premade characters, the base of the argument is really why play a character premade vs making your own. then slap on additional features to those premade characters.

Well, that’s not nearly the same thing. A lot of RPGs have pre-sets that players can pick for a fast start, but those are essentially pre-made custom characters. What’s more pre-made custom characters, just affect character creation. The worry is, at least mine, is that origins take away from both custom characters and companions, as it was in D:OS2. Custom characters don’t get good enough context and development because “hey, if you want story we pre-written an intro for an origin. Pick one!” while companions are limited by what they can be as they are meant to be possessed at any time by a coop buddy.
Posted By: Drath Malorn Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/11/20 10:23 PM
Originally Posted by Maerd
If you don't want to play origin character, nobody forces you to do so. Just make a character you like and go for it.

I just hope the freedom to choose is there and goes both ways. That is to say, if we want to play as a fully custom character, I hope Larian doesn't remove this option we currently have.

If they go with "the custom PC also has an Origin story", then they are closing doors. As a matter of fact, they are already doing that a bit by giving our custom PC the Baldurian tag. But so far we can roleplay someone not from Baldur's Gate by not selecting the corresponding dialogue options.
Posted By: Taramafor Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/11/20 10:27 PM
I prefer to my own person. Live in the world. Dragon Age found a nice way to mix the two together. If the devs are smart, they'll take inspiration from that.
The issue is that Larian's past games make "Origin" characters more relevant to the story than custom created characters.
Posted By: fallenj Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/11/20 10:40 PM
Originally Posted by Wormerine
Originally Posted by fallenj

Arent? are not?? they are premade characters, the base of the argument is really why play a character premade vs making your own. then slap on additional features to those premade characters.

Well, that’s not nearly the same thing. A lot of RPGs have pre-sets that players can pick for a fast start, but those are essentially pre-made custom characters. What’s more pre-made custom characters, just affect character creation. The worry is, at least mine, is that origins take away from both custom characters and companions, as it was in D:OS2. Custom characters don’t get good enough context and development because “hey, if you want story we pre-written an intro for an origin. Pick one!” while companions are limited by what they can be as they are meant to be possessed at any time by a coop buddy.



It really is, bottom line your picking something that removes customization, someone already setup the character or elements of the character for you.
Posted By: Zarna Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 17/11/20 12:50 AM
Originally Posted by Drath Malorn

I just hope the freedom to choose is there and goes both ways. That is to say, if we want to play as a fully custom character, I hope Larian doesn't remove this option we currently have.

If they go with "the custom PC also has an Origin story", then they are closing doors. As a matter of fact, they are already doing that a bit by giving our custom PC the Baldurian tag. But so far we can roleplay someone not from Baldur's Gate by not selecting the corresponding dialogue options.

Agreed. It would be really depressing if they give in to the unimaginative people and take away our freedom to make anyone we want. I do think there should be a few basic template options that those people can pick from to make it easier for them, in addition to what we have now. Not everyone wants to play an Origin character.
Posted By: Uncle Lester Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 17/11/20 10:59 AM
Originally Posted by Zarna
Originally Posted by Drath Malorn

I just hope the freedom to choose is there and goes both ways. That is to say, if we want to play as a fully custom character, I hope Larian doesn't remove this option we currently have.

If they go with "the custom PC also has an Origin story", then they are closing doors. As a matter of fact, they are already doing that a bit by giving our custom PC the Baldurian tag. But so far we can roleplay someone not from Baldur's Gate by not selecting the corresponding dialogue options.

Agreed. It would be really depressing if they give in to the unimaginative people and take away our freedom to make anyone we want. I do think there should be a few basic template options that those people can pick from to make it easier for them, in addition to what we have now. Not everyone wants to play an Origin character.


I agree they shouldn't take away the "really custom" option, but I disagree that all people who'd be interested in a "half-origin" system are "unimaginative". It's not a matter of not being able to come up with a backstory. It's a matter of the game world not recognizing it. It's immersion-breaking if the game treats your character as "has no past", reactivity is very important in an RPG. It's a trade-off system: do I care more about freedom in creating my character's backstory or do I want my character to feel a part of the game world (without resorting to headcanon, which sometimes has to go against what the game tells me)?

So again, DA:O-style origins aren't for "thinking for the player" or "making CC easy and quick"; they're for increasing immersion, in short.
Posted By: Drath Malorn Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 17/11/20 11:32 AM
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by Zarna
Originally Posted by Drath Malorn

I just hope the freedom to choose is there and goes both ways. That is to say, if we want to play as a fully custom character, I hope Larian doesn't remove this option we currently have.

If they go with "the custom PC also has an Origin story", then they are closing doors. As a matter of fact, they are already doing that a bit by giving our custom PC the Baldurian tag. But so far we can roleplay someone not from Baldur's Gate by not selecting the corresponding dialogue options.

Agreed. It would be really depressing if they give in to the unimaginative people and take away our freedom to make anyone we want. I do think there should be a few basic template options that those people can pick from to make it easier for them, in addition to what we have now. Not everyone wants to play an Origin character.


I agree they shouldn't take away the "really custom" option, but I disagree that all people who'd be interested in a "half-origin" system are "unimaginative". It's not a matter of not being able to come up with a backstory. It's a matter of the game world not recognizing it. It's immersion-breaking if the game treats your character as "has no past", reactivity is very important in an RPG. It's a trade-off system: do I care more about freedom in creating my character's backstory or do I want my character to feel a part of the game world (without resorting to headcanon, which sometimes has to go against what the game tells me)?

So again, DA:O-style origins aren't for "thinking for the player" or "making CC easy and quick"; they're for increasing immersion, in short.

Half-agreed. I wouldn't call people who want an Origin story or Origin backstory unimaginative. And if Larian gives 1-3 options, and they are vague enough, and one of them speaks to me, or I can adapt one of my own characters' stories to fit it, I may well try to do a playthrough with with a slightly pre-determined backstory.

I also agree it's clearly a trade-off here. If the game leaves me total freedom on the backstory and makes no assumptions on it, then it cannot use it and mix it with the global adventure.

But that doesn't feel immersion breaking to me. I can envision a character from a faraway place who was in the Sword Coast because reasons, got captured and infected by a tadpole, went through a whole adventure to get rid of it, messed up with Big Picture World Plans along the way (whoever the Absolute are and whatever their plan is), maybe saved the city of Baldur's Gate, maybe found love, and then will go back to their homeland after that. The fact that the game doesn't imbed My Story into The Story is fine, all the more so if My Story doesn't mesh well to begin with, and The Story can be seen as An Unexpected Journey in the life of my character.

I can still roleplay if I can think : ok, given my character's story and personality, what would they do there, what would they say here.

And if the game can minimally react to my story, that's cool. For instance, the Baldurians (Wyll, Shadowheart, Astarion) can give me more advice about where to stay for the night if I've told them I have never set foot in Baldur's Gate before, whereas if my character grew up there, they might check in their favourite tavern and say hi to the barman.
Posted By: Uncle Lester Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 17/11/20 11:47 AM
Originally Posted by Drath Malorn
Half-agreed. I wouldn't call people who want an Origin story or Origin backstory unimaginative. And if Larian gives 1-3 options, and they are vague enough, and one of them speaks to me, or I can adapt one of my own characters' stories to fit it, I may well try to do a playthrough with with a slightly pre-determined backstory.

I also agree it's clearly a trade-off here. If the game leaves me total freedom on the backstory and makes no assumptions on it, then it cannot use it and mix it with the global adventure.

But that doesn't feel immersion breaking to me. I can envision a character from a faraway place who was in the Sword Coast because reasons, got captured and infected by a tadpole, went through a whole adventure to get rid of it, messed up with Big Picture World Plans along the way (whoever the Absolute are and whatever their plan is), maybe saved the city of Baldur's Gate, maybe found love, and then will go back to their homeland after that. The fact that the game doesn't imbed My Story into The Story is fine, all the more so if My Story doesn't mesh well to begin with, and The Story can be seen as An Unexpected Journey in the life of my character.

I can still roleplay if I can think : ok, given my character's story and personality, what would they do there, what would they say here.

And if the game can minimally react to my story, that's cool. For instance, the Baldurians (Wyll, Shadowheart, Astarion) can give me more advice about where to stay for the night if I've told them I have never set foot in Baldur's Gate before, whereas if my character grew up there, they might check in their favourite tavern and say hi to the barman.


I'm personally fine with the whole spectrum, from TES-like blank to fixed Geralt. Each of these approaches is valid, if done well, each has its own merits. My point was against dismissing established backgrounds as "unimaginative", not against fully custom characters; I like those too. But it always feels great if a game surprises you with appearing to "understand" who your character is and reacting accordingly. And yes, BG3 already has "traces" of established background.
Posted By: Madscientist Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 17/11/20 12:27 PM
I did not read everything above, so here are my 2 cents about origin characters:

I play the game with my custum char and consider the others as companions in the same way as BG1+2 or many other games.
This way it feel like playing any other RPG and my companions seem to be more reactive than in most other games which is good.
By reactive I mean comments, suggestion or they like/dislike my actions when I talk to other people or do stuff.

There are 2 problems, at least for me who plays single player only:
- NPC tell the same stuff again when I talk to them with another party member. This can be irritating when you (the player) think: Why do you tell me that? I already did this.
solution: always talk to people with the same char, usually the one with highest charisma and talking skills.

- If your custom char is not the one with highest cha you will usually talk to NPC with another char, This means you are role playing someone else.
solution: Talk to NPC as your main char and role play someone who may be very strong or clever but not the best talker.
OK, this will be hard for me I admit.
Posted By: Drath Malorn Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 17/11/20 12:44 PM
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
And yes, BG3 already has "traces" of established background.

Oh ? Where ?

What I've seen so far is only the Baldurian background. It appears as a dialogue option in a couple of conversations. What is cool about this is that, so far, you can either use it (and assume the Baldurian background) or not use it and pretend you are not from the Gate. I don't think I have seen anyone using it directly. I doubt it will stay this way when we reach Baldur's Gate, although I hope we'll have the option at character creation to choose a couple of these non sex-race-class-background tags.

Are there any other such "traces" ? (I have not gone beyond the camp celebration, so please don't spoil me if it happens afterwards).
Posted By: Nyanko Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 17/11/20 12:46 PM
Originally Posted by Drath Malorn
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
And yes, BG3 already has "traces" of established background.

Oh ? Where ?

What I've seen so far is only the Baldurian background. It appears as a dialogue option in a couple of conversations. What is cool about this is that, so far, you can either use it (and assume the Baldurian background) or not use it and pretend you are not from the Gate. I don't think I have seen anyone using it directly. I doubt it will stay this way when we reach Baldur's Gate, although I hope we'll have the option at character creation to choose a couple of these non sex-race-class-background tags.

Are there any other such "traces" ? (I have not gone beyond the camp celebration, so please don't spoil me if it happens afterwards).


Well, drow don't have baldurian. They have underdark instead. And I guess druegar and gnome will follow the same treat. As well, Lae'zel has a planar background. And I assume Karlach will too.
Posted By: Zarna Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 17/11/20 12:55 PM
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester
Originally Posted by Drath Malorn
Half-agreed. I wouldn't call people who want an Origin story or Origin backstory unimaginative. And if Larian gives 1-3 options, and they are vague enough, and one of them speaks to me, or I can adapt one of my own characters' stories to fit it, I may well try to do a playthrough with with a slightly pre-determined backstory.

I also agree it's clearly a trade-off here. If the game leaves me total freedom on the backstory and makes no assumptions on it, then it cannot use it and mix it with the global adventure.

But that doesn't feel immersion breaking to me. I can envision a character from a faraway place who was in the Sword Coast because reasons, got captured and infected by a tadpole, went through a whole adventure to get rid of it, messed up with Big Picture World Plans along the way (whoever the Absolute are and whatever their plan is), maybe saved the city of Baldur's Gate, maybe found love, and then will go back to their homeland after that. The fact that the game doesn't imbed My Story into The Story is fine, all the more so if My Story doesn't mesh well to begin with, and The Story can be seen as An Unexpected Journey in the life of my character.

I can still roleplay if I can think : ok, given my character's story and personality, what would they do there, what would they say here.

And if the game can minimally react to my story, that's cool. For instance, the Baldurians (Wyll, Shadowheart, Astarion) can give me more advice about where to stay for the night if I've told them I have never set foot in Baldur's Gate before, whereas if my character grew up there, they might check in their favourite tavern and say hi to the barman.


I'm personally fine with the whole spectrum, from TES-like blank to fixed Geralt. Each of these approaches is valid, if done well, each has its own merits. My point was against dismissing established backgrounds as "unimaginative", not against fully custom characters; I like those too. But it always feels great if a game surprises you with appearing to "understand" who your character is and reacting accordingly. And yes, BG3 already has "traces" of established background.

The unimaginative comment was more directed to people who complain that they didn't want to have to come up with a full character DnD style. Not to everyone. That is why I would like there to be some premade non Origin stuff for the people that want it, but without taking away the current full freedom we have. Have the Origin characters, the partial version (maybe a bit like DA:O?) and the full custom. Possible issues with this is that people still won't be happy if they add a handful of generic backgrounds since their favourite idea isn't in the list. Also if they take the time to add in more than a handful generics or any at all, then this will take away from other aspects that need work, people would obviously want there to be more dialogue options for them.
Posted By: Neuleser Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 17/11/20 02:00 PM
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Well, drow don't have baldurian. They have underdark instead. And I guess druegar and gnome will follow the same treat. As well, Lae'zel has a planar background. And I assume Karlach will too.


Tieflings do not have a planar background, githyanki and warforged do.
Posted By: Uncle Lester Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 17/11/20 05:19 PM
Originally Posted by Drath Malorn
Are there any other such "traces" ? (I have not gone beyond the camp celebration, so please don't spoil me if it happens afterwards).


As Nyanko mentioned, drow (and potentially duergar and svirfneblin) have Underdark tag instead, and Githyanki have Astral (/planar/whatever). Then we have race and class tags, deity for clerics. I hope they expand a lot on all these, there's a lot of potential in tags.

Originally Posted by Zarna
The unimaginative comment was more directed to people who complain that they didn't want to have to come up with a full character DnD style. Not to everyone. That is why I would like there to be some premade non Origin stuff for the people that want it, but without taking away the current full freedom we have. Have the Origin characters, the partial version (maybe a bit like DA:O?) and the full custom. Possible issues with this is that people still won't be happy if they add a handful of generic backgrounds since their favourite idea isn't in the list. Also if they take the time to add in more than a handful generics or any at all, then this will take away from other aspects that need work, people would obviously want there to be more dialogue options for them.


Got you. "Have the Origin characters, the partial version (maybe a bit like DA:O?) and the full custom." is something I've been suggesting for months. And I'd throw in custom Tav presets, because why not. While I like full customs and don't mind origins, I'd love to have the hybrid option, as it's for me the best of two worlds: has more reactivity and at the same time the character is still mine.

Of course there are also downsides to the hybrid system, but they're mostly solved by having the custom and full origin options as well. (In DA:O I played a human - which I almost never do - because I liked neither Dalish not city elf origins and wanted to play a rogue.)

-----

Also: guys, PLEASE HIDE SPOILERS. Please. ESPECIALLY if it's datamining.
Originally Posted by Uncle Lester


I'm personally fine with the whole spectrum, from TES-like blank to fixed Geralt. Each of these approaches is valid, if done well, each has its own merits.



This is how I feel, too. In my ideal game, it would be somewhere in the middle between these two.
Posted By: Abits Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 17/11/20 09:07 PM
Oh yeah the Elder Scrolls exist. I always forget these games. Well they had a very bland MCs and it was fine, but honestly Elder Scrolls is not a good example for a story driven RPG. At best there are several side quests with good stories there.
Posted By: Nyanko Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 17/11/20 09:08 PM
Originally Posted by Neuleser
Originally Posted by Nyanko
Well, drow don't have baldurian. They have underdark instead. And I guess druegar and gnome will follow the same treat. As well, Lae'zel has a planar background. And I assume Karlach will too.


Tieflings do not have a planar background, githyanki and warforged do.




Yes but Karlach is different. She has lived a good period of time in Avernus it seems. She might have both.
Posted By: Abits Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 17/11/20 09:11 PM
Were I on Larian's shoes I would make Tav some sort of exiled planer regardless of race. If I remember correctly, all the races have representation in sigil, so just make small background about the MC doing something to piss off the lady of pain, but leave it vauge. Since you're not going back to sigil in this game you are basically a clean slate.
Posted By: Verte Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 17/11/20 09:17 PM
Originally Posted by Abits
Were I on Larian's shoes I would make Tav some sort of exiled planer regardless of race. If I remember correctly, all the races have representation in sigil, so just make small background about the MC doing something to piss off the lady of pain, but leave it vauge. Since you're not going back to sigil in this game you are basically a clean slate.



I like the idea, but she would send the MC to the maze as punishment.
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 17/11/20 09:28 PM

Agreed that balance is what is needed. Just enough to make the story I'm telling myself stick. BG got it right -- I was a Bhaalspawn, I was Gorion's ward and other that I was free to make up any story I wanted to tell myself.

Feeling like you are just talking to yourself isn't enough. If I selected "urchin" people should comment on my low born accent. I should be able utter few select curses that improve my chances of getting a positive reaction from the zents and such. And just the opposite for

I get lots of reactions that are unique to my race and class but my background doesn't seem to count for anything. Custom characters need their own unique quest and a stronghold equivalent.

Originally Posted by tsundokugames
The issue is that Larian's past games make "Origin" characters more relevant to the story than custom created characters.


Exactly. My custom character in DOS2 was there to carry Fane's luggage.
Posted By: drimaxus Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 18/11/20 05:28 PM
The problem with Origin stories in my opinion is that offers less replayability, once you go through a full run with shadowheart you don't want to ever have to listen to her again grin. And if you don't choose origin characters you are left with a mute custom character with no background story that seems more like a spectator to the story, it feels lifeless and detached.
Posted By: DanteYoda Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 22/11/20 07:41 AM
Originally Posted by Maerd
Originally Posted by tsundokugames
because the point of a role playing game is to make a character and develop it by roleplaying it in the face of challenges.

origin characters remove all of the agency by having everything pre determined.

hell, did you play Temple of Elemental Evil with the default party or did you make your own?


If you don't want to play origin character, nobody forces you to do so. Just make a character you like and go for it. What's the point of your whining?

Just takes a huge amount of dev time away from the actual game and adds content very few want.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Originally Posted by guy
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
Considering that the "Origin" system continues in BG3, you might suspect that players enjoyed using it in DoS2.
The argument that the custom characters were shallow doesn't make much sense in this case. Most people didn't even know it when they first played it, but the system would still have to be popular (most people don't even finish games, not to mention playing a few times.).
If it were otherwise, Larian would not waste resources to introduce a mechanic that not many people like.

Could use some statistics from DoS2 how many people finished the game as a custom character. It may turn out that the "origin" system may have been more popular than we think.


This isn't DoS2.

Larian is falling back on a system they already developed. Thats what big game developers do.

DoS has different source material than BG. Just because it seems to have worked well for one source material does not mean it will work well for a different source material.

In addition, just the title itself will be attracting a player base from decades ago.

I just do not see origins working well with this source material unless it opened up entire new start areas and game play.

Neat little easter egg. But not the meat and potatoes.

spells. races. classes. map. npc interactions.

will the druids give different items to druid player characters? will tieflings let tiefling player characters join their group? etc etc.

and MORE companions. Halson the druid good spot to join. minthara. a few others.
Even getting that smart ogre to join your party.
There are better things the devs could focus on, that the player base would go absolutely enjoy more.

There should be more focus on that, and less on origins of very limited companions.


Why shouldn't this work for BG3?

The last thing the game needs is a bunch of poorly written companions.


But they are already.. poorly written.. and very generic, not one Gnome, Halfling or Dwarf.. and Larion had the gaul to tell us off for making Vault Dwellers and they do the exact same thing with origin characters...
Posted By: Abits Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 22/11/20 08:28 AM
Originally Posted by DanteYoda

Just takes a huge amount of dev time away from the actual game and adds content very few want.

Wrong. unless you have some very compelling proof, you can't claim very few want origin characters. I don't have much to say many do, but I did make some anti origin posts on Reddit and got downvoted quite harshly.
The people who want the origin characters are not the die-hard crazies who post on the forums. They're all the regular people out there who never give feedback and just play the game and want things to be simple.
Posted By: Abits Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 22/11/20 08:32 AM
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
The people who want the origin characters are not the die-hard crazies who post on the forums. They're all the regular people out there who never give feedback and just play the game and want things to be simple.

this.
It's important because we can bitch about origin characters all day long (and I'm right there with the bitching side, my first major post in this forum was me bitching about origin characters) but we are a minority in this as far as I can tell.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 22/11/20 09:20 AM
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by DanteYoda

Just takes a huge amount of dev time away from the actual game and adds content very few want.

Wrong. unless you have some very compelling proof, you can't claim very few want origin characters. I don't have much to say many do, but I did make some anti origin posts on Reddit and got downvoted quite harshly.


Reddit is awful though so that just convinces me origins are bad
Posted By: Drath Malorn Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 22/11/20 09:29 AM
Originally Posted by Abits
It's important because we can bitch about origin characters all day long (and I'm right there with the bitching side, my first major post in this forum was me bitching about origin characters) but we are a minority in this as far as I can tell.

Maybe we are, maybe we are not, and if we are, how small of a minority : 5% ? 25%? 45% ? I don't know, and I feel it doesn't matter much. I think catering to the people who won't play an Origins companions, but instead a fully custom PC, costs a fraction of what it takes to create merely one Origins companion. (Creating an Origins PC/semi-custom PC would probably take less, as I assume a lot of voice acting won't be needed.) To a very good extent, the fully custom PC is already there. If Larian can give us a couple of options at character creation, all the better, the most important is to not remove options.
Posted By: Innateagle Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 22/11/20 10:03 AM
No point in giving feedback ever, then, since the ones doing it are always gonna be the vocal minority. Never understood that argument, to be honest.

Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by DanteYoda

Just takes a huge amount of dev time away from the actual game and adds content very few want.

Wrong. unless you have some very compelling proof, you can't claim very few want origin characters. I don't have much to say many do, but I did make some anti origin posts on Reddit and got downvoted quite harshly.


Reddit is awful though so that just convinces me origins are bad


Was gonna ask if you don't like Astarion fanart, but apparently it evolved to Astarion figurines
Posted By: Abits Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 22/11/20 10:07 AM
I said nothing about not giving feedback. please by all means give feedback. As I said, I started my "Larian forums career" by raising the same feedback. I simply pointed out the fact we are a minority. everything else is your interpretation.
Posted By: Innateagle Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 22/11/20 10:23 AM
Yeah, but if the argument is that there's a 'silent majority' that doesn't give feedback because they're fine with things, then there's really no point in reporting anything other than bugs and we're all just beta testers.

Like, since we got actual data on it, 96% of people went along with the pretty awkward romance scenes, right? Should we assume a good 90% are fine with them because they're not flooding forums?

Anyway, don't wanna derail the topic. It's just an argument that i never understood since it relies in the absence of data.
Posted By: Dexai Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 22/11/20 10:31 AM
Originally Posted by Innateagle
No point in giving feedback ever, then, since the ones doing it are always gonna be the vocal minority. Never understood that argument, to be honest.

Originally Posted by Dexai
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by DanteYoda

Just takes a huge amount of dev time away from the actual game and adds content very few want.

Wrong. unless you have some very compelling proof, you can't claim very few want origin characters. I don't have much to say many do, but I did make some anti origin posts on Reddit and got downvoted quite harshly.


Reddit is awful though so that just convinces me origins are bad


Was gonna ask if you don't like Astarion fanart, but apparently it evolved to Astarion figurines


Is it on reddit? Then it's wrong
Posted By: Moirnelithe Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 22/11/20 11:24 AM
I can't help wondering though. If they hadn't added origin characters I suspect the people that now demand to have them wouldn't have even noticed the lack of them. And maybe the game would have been better overal.
Posted By: Uncle Lester Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 22/11/20 06:14 PM
I don't mind origins per se (I do recognize some problems), but I think people who are fine with them (the majority Abits mentions) would be just as fine with not having them. Or at least not care very much about that.
Posted By: vyvexthorne Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 22/11/20 09:03 PM
Came across this (poll) post on Reddit today. As of the time of me posting this 403 have voted for custom character while Origin characters remain under 100.
Posted By: Tarlonniel Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 22/11/20 09:31 PM
Originally Posted by vyvexthorne
As of the time of me posting this 403 have voted for custom character while Origin characters remain under 100.


I have to wonder if Origin characters are more popular with the casual audience, those who don't obsess over a game enough to post/vote in forums. I imagine they're probably the majority of Larian's customer base. And of course it's not like you can't play a custom character on one run and an Origin character on another - I've seen lots of people around here planning to do just that.
Posted By: Sozz Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 22/11/20 09:44 PM
Between the speculations on continuity with the older games questions on how an established character would be integrated into an origin system (Minsc) and the constant back and forth between the question of player agency and narrative cohesion (Herosexual NPCs RIP frown Dragon age Origins - Next gen RPG and Will there be a Prologue, before your capture?/Character Acting, Demeanor and Personallity I feel like I keep seeing relitigated, the same central question: where on the scale between 'total sandbox' character freedom and a totally linear narrative do we want this RPG to peg to?

"Total sandbox" is impossible, and "totally linear" is not on the table, but Larian in an effort to marry these two, gives you the option of play pre-made characters with bespoke storylines and with established histories and personalities, or creating your own custom main character who can be a blank slate for the player to write on.

I think this is a laudable endeavor for Larian to attempt but I'm afraid that in trying to be a jack-of-all-trades it won't be able to give us enough of either type of play-style to really make a good story. I feel this way because that's how I felt about DOS:II, I didn't think playing a custom character was worth it storywise, and I didn't think that any individual origin storyline satisfied me from an RPG, 'choose your adventure' stand point.

I find total sandbox games, like a lot of the Rogue-like games that have been coming out, terribly dull, I come to this genre for the interactive storytelling, "emergent gameplay" doesn't really interest me as much, so I'm inclined to want a narrative with a more established character but ideally I would like a game that let's me create a custom character that would be able to interact with the world with the same kind of depth as an origin character.
Posted By: Uncle Lester Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 22/11/20 10:01 PM
Originally Posted by Sozz
Between the speculations on continuity with the older games questions on how an established character would be integrated into an origin system (Minsc) and the constant back and forth between the question of player agency and narrative cohesion (Herosexual NPCs RIP frown Dragon age Origins - Next gen RPG and Will there be a Prologue, before your capture?/Character Acting, Demeanor and Personallity I feel like I keep seeing relitigated, the same central question: where on the scale between 'total sandbox' character freedom and a totally linear narrative do we want this RPG to peg to?

"Total sandbox" is impossible, and "totally linear" is not on the table, but Larian in an effort to marry these two, gives you the option of play pre-made characters with bespoke storylines and with established histories and personalities, or creating your own custom main character who can be a blank slate for the player to write on.

I think this is a laudable endeavor for Larian to attempt but I'm afraid that in trying to be a jack-of-all-trades it won't be able to give us enough of either type of play-style to really make a good story. I feel this way because that's how I felt about DOS:II, I didn't think playing a custom character was worth it storywise, and I didn't think that any individual origin storyline satisfied me from an RPG, 'choose your adventure' stand point.

I find total sandbox games like a lot of the Rogue-like games that have been coming out terribly dull, I come this genre for the interactive story telling, "emergent gameplay" doesn't really interest me as much, so I'm inclined to want a narrative with a more established character but ideally I would like a game that let's be create a custom character that would be able to interact with the world with the same kind of depth as an origin character.


Funny to read that, as some of your points are very similar to a part of a long post I'm (very slowly) writing.

Larian is aiming at something I consider a step forward for RPGs (and games in general) - both custom and fixed protagonists to choose from - but it's hard to get right and not getting it right is going to result in both options being underwhelming at best. It could be truly amazing if both were done very well, but that is both difficult and requires lots of resources.
Posted By: trengilly Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 22/11/20 10:53 PM
Honestly I'm still confused how Larian adding origin characters in any way detracts from playing a custom character? Other than the theoretical 'resources could be better spent elsewhere' I just don't get it. Having fleshed out companions (that could also double as a protagonist) in no way overshadows your custom character . . . that argument applies to any companion in any game regardless if they can be origin characters or not. Is it some feeling of loss that you are missing out on content by not playing the origin characters or something?
And I'm saying this a someone who has zero interest in playing the origin characters. I'll be playing custom characters and the NPCs will be my companions, done.

Some number of people apparently like origin characters . . . and Larian feels it is worthwhile . . . so good for them!
Posted By: N7Greenfire Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 22/11/20 10:54 PM
Originally Posted by Tarlonniel
Originally Posted by vyvexthorne
As of the time of me posting this 403 have voted for custom character while Origin characters remain under 100.


I have to wonder if Origin characters are more popular with the casual audience, those who don't obsess over a game enough to post/vote in forums. I imagine they're probably the majority of Larian's customer base. And of course it's not like you can't play a custom character on one run and an Origin character on another - I've seen lots of people around here planning to do just that.

And a good chunk of the work has to be done to make them companions anyway
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 22/11/20 11:18 PM
Originally Posted by trengilly
Honestly I'm still confused how Larian adding origin characters in any way detracts from playing a custom character? Other than the theoretical 'resources could be better spent elsewhere' I just don't get it. Having fleshed out companions (that could also double as a protagonist) in no way overshadows your custom character . . . that argument applies to any companion in any game regardless if they can be origin characters or not. Is it some feeling of loss that you are missing out on content by not playing the origin characters or something? [...]

The problem is not that the companions are fleshed out. The problem is that Origin Characters have backstories and tadpoles whereas Tav only has the tadpole. Thus, the only thing that makes Tav unique and actually feel connected/important to the world ([Baldurian] dialogue tags are not sufficient) is not, in fact, unique.

And the 'theoretical resources could be spent elsewhere' argument is valid. Instead of making Astarion, SH, etc Origin characters, Larian could have added DAO-like background stories for Tav or something similar. Idk how much more work it was to convert Astarion+ from normal companions to Origin companions, but it was probably not zero.
Posted By: Warlocke Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 12:30 AM
My favorite part of a blank slate custom character is that their background is whatever I imagine it to be. I don’t need anything else. I don’t feel like my characters are less integrated into the story. My character is important because they are the one who has assumed the leadership role and is making all of the important decisions.

Having DAO origin stories would limit our choices in character creation. BG3 has so many more race and class options than DAO that origins for all of those would be unfeasible. DAO originally had twice as many origin stories planned out but BioWare had to cut them for all of the resources they took to create. There is a reason they dropped the idea from DA2 and DAI.

It’s also worth noting that we don’t yet know how integrated custom characters will be into the city of Baldur’s Gate. It could be that custom characters will have their own homes and some NPCs that reflect their class.
Posted By: Sozz Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 12:38 AM
Originally Posted by Warlocke
My favorite part of a blank slate custom character is that their background is whatever I imagine it to be. I don’t need anything else. I don’t feel like my characters are less integrated into the story. My character is important because they are the one who has assumed the leadership role and is making all of the important decisions.

Having DAO origin stories would limit our choices in character creation. BG3 has so many more race and class options than DAO, and DAO originally had twice as many origin stories planned out but BioWare had to cut them for all of the resources they took to create. There is a reason they dropped the idea from DA2 and DAI.
What makes your character so special that they assume leadership with such ease? What if you want to play a character who isn't the leader?

How can you consider your character as integrated into the story when you'll be dealing with your companions personal questlines while your own character's history is never more than a throw away line?

Of course I'm assuming the Custom MC won't have their own personal quest generated by your choices, but I think I can consider that a safe assumption.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 12:58 AM
Originally Posted by Sozz
What makes your character so special that they assume leadership with such ease? What if you want to play a character who isn't the leader?

Then you go for solo run? I liked how Fallout1&2 and Arcanum party size was defined by charisma. Then again, I didn’t like how party members would be out of my control and act like morons.

Yeah, I have nothing against little Bioware-explanation: you are leader, because “x”. You don’t do that and things can feel weirdly convenient.
Posted By: Zarna Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 01:29 AM
Originally Posted by mrfuji3

The problem is not that the companions are fleshed out. The problem is that Origin Characters have backstories and tadpoles whereas Tav only has the tadpole. Thus, the only thing that makes Tav unique and actually feel connected/important to the world ([Baldurian] dialogue tags are not sufficient) is not, in fact, unique.

There have been some complaints that seem to revolve around the player not feeling like the most important person in the game because the companions have proper backstories. I am not sure how a premade backstory will help those types though, they probably want no companions and only followers. For the rest of us, we have the freedom to be as unique as we want in creating our backstories.

Originally Posted by Warlocke
My favorite part of a blank slate custom character is that their background is whatever I imagine it to be. I don’t need anything else. I don’t feel like my characters are less integrated into the story. My character is important because they are the one who has assumed the leadership role and is making all of the important decisions.

Having DAO origin stories would limit our choices in character creation. BG3 has so many more race and class options than DAO that origins for all of those would be unfeasible. DAO originally had twice as many origin stories planned out but BioWare had to cut them for all of the resources they took to create. There is a reason they dropped the idea from DA2 and DAI.

It’s also worth noting that we don’t yet know how integrated custom characters will be into the city of Baldur’s Gate. It could be that custom characters will have their own homes and some NPCs that reflect their class.

Agreed. There are more than enough games out there that limit us, this one should remain as it is. Maybe add some generic premades if they have time for the people that can't come up with anything on their own.

Having a home in Baldur's Gate for city natives is a good idea but it might be a bit jarring for players unfamiliar with the area unless they explain better the amount of memory loss we have.

Originally Posted by Sozz
What makes your character so special that they assume leadership with such ease? What if you want to play a character who isn't the leader?

How can you consider your character as integrated into the story when you'll be dealing with your companions personal questlines while your own character's history is never more than a throw away line?

Of course I'm assuming the Custom MC won't have their own personal quest generated by your choices, but I think I can consider that a safe assumption.

You don't have to take the leadership position. You can control all 4 characters, give it to Lae'zel since she seems to want it so much. smile

I consider my characters decently integrated into the story. It seems to me that we have lost some memories, namely the ones surrounding our capture and some of the time on the ship. Anything else is up to the player to come up with, including a personal quest, although I think that they expect this to be revolving around the situation we find ourselves in. Too early to tell. Memory loss and experimentation can make for some interesting plot (and a way for your DM to screw with you) while leaving enough open for there to be multiple ways to fill in the blanks later on.
Posted By: vyvexthorne Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 01:30 AM
Originally Posted by Tarlonniel
Originally Posted by vyvexthorne
As of the time of me posting this 403 have voted for custom character while Origin characters remain under 100.


I have to wonder if Origin characters are more popular with the casual audience, those who don't obsess over a game enough to post/vote in forums. I imagine they're probably the majority of Larian's customer base. And of course it's not like you can't play a custom character on one run and an Origin character on another - I've seen lots of people around here planning to do just that.


Maybe.. I'd personally think that these types of games would be too rule heavy and lengthy for the casual crowd though. I guess it depends on what "casual" means these days.
Posted By: Tarlonniel Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 01:35 AM
You can never have a complete blank slate character in a video game, because some things are always going to be defined for you. You'll be limited to available classes and races. You'll be limited to characters who want to accomplish whatever needs to be accomplished, in the ways you're presented of accomplishing it. As the game goes on, you may need to adjust your character concept in order to continue - if you're playing a hardcore pacifist, for example, and you come to a point where you must kill someone in order to advance, you'll either need to adjust your character or quit and make another one. Or headcanon the heck out of the situation and write fanfic afterwards. That tends to be my strategy.

Everyone has different ideas about just how many restrictions they're willing to accept. There are some games I refuse to play because I can't customize the main character enough, but, on the other hand, if I have to deploy headcanon a lot because the game can't react to the elaborate imaginary backstory I was given the freedom to make up, I end up disconnected from the world and the story.

I'm glad I'm not a game developer because I have no idea how to strike a good balance between those extremes.
Posted By: Sozz Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 01:53 AM
Originally Posted by Zarna
You don't have to take the leadership position. You can control all 4 characters, give it to Lae'zel since she seems to want it so much. smile
I would be very interested in a game that allowed this to happen. Unfortunately this game even when given a scenario where your character cedes the initiative doesn't allow that to really happen
Originally Posted by Sozz
I'm specifically talking about the meeting with the dragonrider and his troop. Larian does a very annoying thing during the dialogue here

If you have Lae'zel in your party she attempts to take the initiative during the dialogue, this is good, my issue comes after this. If you cede that to her the game still seems to think you're in control of what happens next, I've done this a few times both with a Lae'zel who dislikes me and one that respects me, it doesn't make sense either way for her to be looking to me for guidance when she's talking to her own people, and a superior.

Having every dialogue beat revolve around secret hand gestures telling her what to say is pretty egregious, I can understand a persuade check to get her to hold off on talking about the tadpoles or the mystery box but as it stands there's really nothing yet that makes Lae'zel look to your character for leadership. In fact I think she might actually find it a little insulting.
Originally Posted by Zarna
There are more than enough games out there that limit us, this one should remain as it is. Maybe add some generic premades if they have time for the people that can't come up with anything on their own.
I don't think a lack of imagination is at question here, but that you aren't given any tools to craft your own background. Currently you can choose race, sex, class, and a generic occupation (straight out of the handbook) which is little more than a way to Tag! skill proficiencies. Unless you're talking about making head-cannon backgrounds for your custom mc, which I consider akin to playing D&D without rules or dice rolls, it can be fun, but without any feedback from an impartial third-party, It ends up just feeling a little shallow.
Posted By: Sozz Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 02:13 AM
Originally Posted by Tarlonniel
You can never have a complete blank slate character in a video game, because some things are always going to be defined for you. You'll be limited to available classes and races. You'll be limited to characters who want to accomplish whatever needs to be accomplished, in the ways you're presented of accomplishing it. As the game goes on, you may need to adjust your character concept in order to continue - if you're playing a hardcore pacifist, for example, and you come to a point where you must kill someone in order to advance, you'll either need to adjust your character or quit and make another one. Or headcanon the heck out of the situation and write fanfic afterwards. That tends to be my strategy.

Everyone has different ideas about just how many restrictions they're willing to accept. There are some games I refuse to play because I can't customize the main character enough, but, on the other hand, if I have to deploy headcanon a lot because the game can't react to the elaborate imaginary backstory I was given the freedom to make up, I end up disconnected from the world and the story.

I'm glad I'm not a game developer because I have no idea how to strike a good balance between those extremes.
Having read your fanfiction I think you have plenty to add to how a custom character could be handled better (and our first meeting with Astarion for that matter) smile
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 02:18 AM
Originally Posted by Zarna
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
The problem is not that the companions are fleshed out. The problem is that Origin Characters have backstories and tadpoles whereas Tav only has the tadpole. Thus, the only thing that makes Tav unique and actually feel connected/important to the world ([Baldurian] dialogue tags are not sufficient) is not, in fact, unique.

There have been some complaints that seem to revolve around the player not feeling like the most important person in the game because the companions have proper backstories. I am not sure how a premade backstory will help those types though, they probably want no companions and only followers. For the rest of us, we have the freedom to be as unique as we want in creating our backstories.

There is a big difference between being the "most important person in the game" and "having a unique in-game connection to the world (not just headcannon in your mind)." Currently, Tav's only in-game connections to the world are the tadpole and the [Baldurian] tag. See @Tarlonniel's comments above on ending up disconnected from the story.
I'm not necessarily asking for a premade backstory. Tav's connection to the world could also determined by a more detailed tagging system: e.g., personality traits tags (honest, kind, lawful, violent, etc) and more locations for our character's hometown than [Baldurian]
Or Tav could have a more unique connection/relation to The Absolute, played or narrated through right before being abducted

I disagree with your assertion that "[players who want Tav to be the most important in the game] probably want no companions and only followers."
Afaik, the difference between origin characters and followers is only the ability to start the game with them & the tadpole. Backstory freedom can be almost entirely separated from NPC stories/importance/strength of personality.
Posted By: Tarlonniel Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 02:42 AM
Originally Posted by Sozz
Having read your fanfiction I think you have plenty to add to how a custom character could be handled better (and our first meeting with Astarion for that matter) smile


Thanks! But fanfic is easy (relatively). I don't have to account for the amount of time and resources my non-existent developers have available. I don't have deadlines, salaries to pay or shareholders' expectations to satisfy. I don't have to worry about engine limitations and game mechanics and all the fans out there clamoring for a thousand conflicting things. All I have to do is steal the brilliant ideas of others, cut them to pieces and sew them into the warped fabric of my imagination while laughing maniacally.

I've made the occasional mod, and that is hard. Putting a whole game together... yikes.
Posted By: Warlocke Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 03:34 AM
Originally Posted by Sozz
What makes your character so special that they assume leadership with such ease?


Being decisive and making the right choices. A person who does that would naturally rise to the position of a leader is most groups of strangers. Why did the NPCs all submit to letting the Bhaalspawn assume leadership in BG1? The same reason. Nobody in the party knew their heritage until towards the end of the game.

Originally Posted by Sozz


What if you want to play a character who isn't the leader?


Then you are playing the wrong genre of video games.

Originally Posted by Sozz
How can you consider your character as integrated into the story when you'll be dealing with your companions personal questlines while your own character's history is never more than a throw away line?


My headcanon is strong.
Posted By: Zarna Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 04:18 AM
Originally Posted by Sozz

Originally Posted by Sozz
I'm specifically talking about the meeting with the dragonrider and his troop. Larian does a very annoying thing during the dialogue here

If you have Lae'zel in your party she attempts to take the initiative during the dialogue, this is good, my issue comes after this. If you cede that to her the game still seems to think you're in control of what happens next, I've done this a few times both with a Lae'zel who dislikes me and one that respects me, it doesn't make sense either way for her to be looking to me for guidance when she's talking to her own people, and a superior.

Having every dialogue beat revolve around secret hand gestures telling her what to say is pretty egregious, I can understand a persuade check to get her to hold off on talking about the tadpoles or the mystery box but as it stands there's really nothing yet that makes Lae'zel look to your character for leadership. In fact I think she might actually find it a little insulting.

I forgot about this scene. There would be a bit of disconnect there. I just would treat it like the Baldurian tag for those who have decided they come from other cities for now but hopefully they can modify that scene.

Originally Posted by Sozz
]I don't think a lack of imagination is at question here, but that you aren't given any tools to craft your own background. Currently you can choose race, sex, class, and a generic occupation (straight out of the handbook) which is little more than a way to Tag! skill proficiencies. Unless you're talking about making head-cannon backgrounds for your custom mc, which I consider akin to playing D&D without rules or dice rolls, it can be fun, but without any feedback from an impartial third-party, It ends up just feeling a little shallow.

The head canon background would be using the DnD rules which are very open when it comes to this. I haven't played with a DM who expects the background to be randomized with dice rolls unless I have misinterpreted you? I come up with backstory using the DnD rules and the proper world setting, and there is only discussion if there is to be any homebrew stuff in there. My character then develops as the game progresses according to things that happen, this part I do in any rp game.

Originally Posted by mrfuji3

There is a big difference between being the "most important person in the game" and "having a unique in-game connection to the world (not just headcannon in your mind)." Currently, Tav's only in-game connections to the world are the tadpole and the [Baldurian] tag. See @Tarlonniel's comments above on ending up disconnected from the story.
I'm not necessarily asking for a premade backstory. Tav's connection to the world could also determined by a more detailed tagging system: e.g., personality traits tags (honest, kind, lawful, violent, etc) and more locations for our character's hometown than [Baldurian]
Or Tav could have a more unique connection/relation to The Absolute, played or narrated through right before being abducted

I disagree with your assertion that "[players who want Tav to be the most important in the game] probably want no companions and only followers."
Afaik, the difference between origin characters and followers is only the ability to start the game with them & the tadpole. Backstory freedom can be almost entirely separated from NPC stories/importance/strength of personality.

My comment was not directed at you, rather at reading between the lines of things some have said in different threads. Some people seem to feel overshadowed by the companions simply because they are fleshed out. This is why having complete freedom to create backstory is good, you can make yourself as great or as insignificant as you want. Some players want to be the only "hero" and any npcs are only there to make them shine more brightly, not to be actual companions. This I don't understand, followers are boring to me.

A more detailed tagging system would be nice, especially if personality traits/demeanour could affect the immersion breaking facial expressions in cut scenes. As for the Baldurian tag, I just simply do not use that option if I am playing a character from another city. What I am worried about is if they add more tags and people complain it is not enough because their personal option is not there, so they keep this cycle until they get frustrated and scrap the whole system and force premades on us, which goes entirely against the spirit of DnD to me.
Having a more unique connection to the Absolute could be interesting if it was an option only. I still think our memory loss is going to be important to the plot. and personally I would not like to be told what I was doing before the abduction, it would ruin this element.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 05:06 AM
Originally Posted by Zarna
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
[...]

My comment was not directed at you, rather at reading between the lines of things some have said in different threads. Some people seem to feel overshadowed by the companions simply because they are fleshed out. This is why having complete freedom to create backstory is good, you can make yourself as great or as insignificant as you want. Some players want to be the only "hero" and any npcs are only there to make them shine more brightly, not to be actual companions. This I don't understand, followers are boring to me.

A more detailed tagging system would be nice, especially if personality traits/demeanour could affect the immersion breaking facial expressions in cut scenes. As for the Baldurian tag, I just simply do not use that option if I am playing a character from another city. What I am worried about is if they add more tags and people complain it is not enough because their personal option is not there, so they keep this cycle until they get frustrated and scrap the whole system and force premades on us, which goes entirely against the spirit of DnD to me.
Having a more unique connection to the Absolute could be interesting if it was an option only. I still think our memory loss is going to be important to the plot. and personally I would not like to be told what I was doing before the abduction, it would ruin this element.


I definitely agree in the importance of companions. Companions, and the connections you make with them, are a big part of what I remember from these types of games. Having them be fully fleshed out is incredibly important.
I think that fully fleshed out and important-to-the-story companions can be balanced with the PC being a or even The 'hero,' although I acknowledge that that's likely easier said then done. Balance is key, and imo BG3 is currently a bit too far toward the "PC is insignificant" side.

That's fair about the tagging system; that people could always say it needs improvement. Similar for my other suggestions. They're not perfect. I'm not really sure what exactly would improve the game, I just know that playing as Tav rn feels lacking to me. I might just like playing as more defined characters *shrug*
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 05:21 AM
Originally Posted by Zarna
Originally Posted by Sozz
I don't think a lack of imagination is at question here, but that you aren't given any tools to craft your own background. Currently you can choose race, sex, class, and a generic occupation (straight out of the handbook) which is little more than a way to Tag! skill proficiencies. Unless you're talking about making head-cannon backgrounds for your custom mc, which I consider akin to playing D&D without rules or dice rolls, it can be fun, but without any feedback from an impartial third-party, It ends up just feeling a little shallow.

The head canon background would be using the DnD rules which are very open when it comes to this. I haven't played with a DM who expects the background to be randomized with dice rolls unless I have misinterpreted you? I come up with backstory using the DnD rules and the proper world setting, and there is only discussion if there is to be any homebrew stuff in there. My character then develops as the game progresses according to things that happen, this part I do in any rp game.

I guess a specific example is in homebrew (sometimes even in premade modules, depending on the DM), the DM can often incorporate part of your background into the story. Find your lost lover, avenge your parents, reclaim your birthright, introduction of an NPC that is from your background, etc. This greatly helps me, at least, to rp my character and feel like they're a real part in the world.

Obviously, I don't expect BG3 to have this type of thing due to the vast amount of work/permutations it'd require. But there's some happy middle ground between headcannon-only Tav and ^.

Of course, Larian could already plan to do something like this in Act 2, in which case great! ^_^
Posted By: Abits Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 06:06 AM
Originally Posted by Warlocke


Being decisive and making the right choices. A person who does that would naturally rise to the position of a leader is most groups of strangers. Why did the NPCs all submit to letting the Bhaalspawn assume leadership in BG1? The same reason. Nobody in the party knew their heritage until towards the end of the game.

This is a very good point
Posted By: KillerRabbit Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 06:23 AM
What mrfuji said. You need enough for the imagination to stick. It's balancing act and the balance is off. The DOS2 origin system was overwhelming -- you were really playing their character and if you said anything out of character it felt like a mistake. And your custom character was oatmeal to their ice cream.

But BG3 is too much of a blank. Background doesn't count at all (yet). Class and race get unique dialogues but those aren't quite enough to make the PC seem unique. Any drow might say this . . . Tav needs something that sets her apart from her companions -- her own quest, her own stronghold, destiny, unique reaction to tadpole -- I dunno but *something* that makes her as interesting the others. At this point Shadowheart seems like the main character.
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Anything that makes the game more accessible makes the game better. More accessible means higher sales. Higher sales means more funding for follow-up DLC or sequels.



Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
A lot of people chose to play as origin characters in DOS2. A lot. More than half the people I've ever seen playing DOS2 on Twitch have been playing as origin characters. Something that hardcore RPG fans don't want and wouldn't use isn't necessarily a bad feature. Because there are gonna be a ton of casual players who buy this game, who have never played D&D, who are not CRPG veterans, and they just want to jump in and play, not try to figure out how to make a character in a complex system they don't understand. People will play the origin characters. And they will enjoy them.

I probably won't, realistically. Most of the people on this forum probably won't. But we're a minority.


Im sorry for responding to such an old comment but I'm feeling too lazy to go through the whole thread to see if someone else has written what I'm about to say and at the same time your statement is something I've seen several others use as an argument and I see it as heavily flawed.

First of all. This game,, even though it might become great, is not the best thing since slized bread. It's a crpg. The third iteration in its series. People that haven't been interested in crpgs before have absoluly no reason becoming interested in this one. Not when the title has the number "3" in it. Some people might pick it up based on hype in media but not the majority. The majority of players bying this game will be people that has either fond memories of earlier Baldur's Gate games, likes D&D/fantasy crpgs or liked Larians previous releases and hopes this will have the same quality.

Secondly, from a sales point of view, it's always better to define your intended target consumer first and then design your product and marketing campaign to fit that person. I will show this with some overly simplistic examples.

Let's say a company want to release a new soda. What flavor should the soda have you ask. Well, we want it to sell it to as many people as possible, so...all the flavors of course!
And then they discover that the new soda taste horribly, so they scrap that idea.

But they still want to sell their product to as many as possible so instead they come up with another idea...what if the customer gets to choose which flavor he wants! So they let test consumers try out their new product. A bottle of carbonated water that comes with a whole bunch of mini flavor packages. Great! thinks the consumers and chooses the flavor they want and enjoy the soda. Afterwards though they realise a problem. What to do with all the unwanted flavor packages? And the test consumers ask the company, why they would buy a bottle of carbonated water with flavor packages, when all they really wanted was a strawberry soda.

The same goes for a computer game or any other product. In trying to reach a too large or generic market, you often risk making a product that doesn't appeal to your intended target and instead come up with something bland that sure has a little of something for everyone but nothing that the consumers can't find anywhere else in concentratred form, specifically tailored towards their particular taste. Imagine Dark Souls with an easy mode or The Sims Battle Royale. Although the last one sounds atleast enjoyable :P

So no, more accessibility doesn't necessarily equal higher sales.
Posted By: Abits Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 07:19 AM

Quote
First of all. This game,, even though it might become great, is not the best thing since slized bread. It's a crpg. The third iteration in its series. People that haven't been interested in crpgs before have absoluly no reason becoming interested in this one. Not when the title has the number "3" in it. Some people might pick it up based on hype in media but not the majority. The majority of players bying this game will be people that has either fond memories of earlier Baldur's Gate games, likes D&D/fantasy crpgs or liked Larians previous releases and hopes this will have the same quality.

Without proper data you can't know for sure you are right. Honestly I'm not sure you are
Posted By: Sozz Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 07:36 AM
Warlocke
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Being decisive and making the right choices. A person who does that would naturally rise to the position of a leader is most groups of strangers. Why did the NPCs all submit to letting the Bhaalspawn assume leadership in BG1? The same reason. Nobody in the party knew their heritage until towards the end of the game.
This is a very good point

counter-point, everyone followed the Bhaalspawn because games are poorly written; with the unwarranted assumption that you are the protagonist. In other words you're the protagonist because you're the protagonist...

I also would like to point out that very 'decisive' people who go around saying they're making 'right' choices are as liable to find themselves leading only themselves.
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Originally Posted by Sozz
What if you want to play a character who isn't the leader?

Then you are playing the wrong genre of video games.
What genre is that? RPG? Then I'm not...I thought you were in favor of more narrative freedom ;p I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here.
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Originally Posted by Sozz
How can you consider your character as integrated into the story when you'll be dealing with your companions personal questlines while your own character's history is never more than a throw away line?
My headcanon is strong.
Originally Posted by Sozz
Unless you're talking about making head-cannon backgrounds for your custom mc, which I consider akin to playing D&D without rules or dice rolls, it can be fun, but without any feedback from an impartial third-party, It ends up just feeling a little shallow.
I don't like playing games that don't play with me, you can make up any kind of story on your end with any game if you wanted or you can use the tools they give you to make a story, I'm arguing that they should give you sufficient tools to make a compelling actor in the story. Otherwise I'm just playing with myself...and you can quote me on that.

Zarna
Originally Posted by Zarna
Originally Posted by Sozz
I don't think a lack of imagination is at question here, but that you aren't given any tools to craft your own background. Currently you can choose race, sex, class, and a generic occupation (straight out of the handbook) which is little more than a way to Tag! skill proficiencies. Unless you're talking about making head-cannon backgrounds for your custom mc, which I consider akin to playing D&D without rules or dice rolls, it can be fun, but without any feedback from an impartial third-party, It ends up just feeling a little shallow.
The head canon background would be using the DnD rules which are very open when it comes to this. I haven't played with a DM who expects the background to be randomized with dice rolls unless I have misinterpreted you? I come up with backstory using the DnD rules and the proper world setting, and there is only discussion if there is to be any homebrew stuff in there. My character then develops as the game progresses according to things that happen, this part I do in any rp game.
I'm sorry I made this confusing, I didn't mean rolling your background, the impartial third-party I'm talking about is the game, our "mechanical DM", making a headcannon around the scant particulars given us in character creation is one thing, but only what is in the game can be observed, reacted to, and incorporated into the story, which is what I'm after most.

I'm also for a more robust system of traits, or similar, to customize our MC with, for the same reason.
Originally Posted by Abits

Quote
First of all. This game,, even though it might become great, is not the best thing since slized bread. It's a crpg. The third iteration in its series. People that haven't been interested in crpgs before have absoluly no reason becoming interested in this one. Not when the title has the number "3" in it. Some people might pick it up based on hype in media but not the majority. The majority of players bying this game will be people that has either fond memories of earlier Baldur's Gate games, likes D&D/fantasy crpgs or liked Larians previous releases and hopes this will have the same quality.

Without proper data you can't know for sure you are right. Honestly I'm not sure you are


I can ofc be wrong, I'm not all knowing. But from a logic point of view...why would someone that hasn't been interested in crpgs before, suddently pick this game up? With the game being titled 3 it tells the customer it's not the first iteration and therefor probably has a story that is continued from earlier games, a story they have missed. Being a crpg it will probably have some basic core mechanics that the customer haven't liked so far. Etc.

I personally don't like fps so I would never pick up a game tagged with fps, no matter how hyped it becomes. And I buy neither books, games or movie sequels without getting the the original first unless I can find confirmation that their stories are independent from each other.
Posted By: Sozz Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 07:53 AM
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by Abits

Quote
First of all. This game,, even though it might become great, is not the best thing since slized bread. It's a crpg. The third iteration in its series. People that haven't been interested in crpgs before have absoluly no reason becoming interested in this one. Not when the title has the number "3" in it. Some people might pick it up based on hype in media but not the majority. The majority of players bying this game will be people that has either fond memories of earlier Baldur's Gate games, likes D&D/fantasy crpgs or liked Larians previous releases and hopes this will have the same quality.

Without proper data you can't know for sure you are right. Honestly I'm not sure you are


I can ofc be wrong, I'm not all knowing. But from a logic point of view...why would someone that hasn't been interested in crpgs before, suddently pick this game up? With the game being titled 3 it tells the customer it's not the first iteration and therefor probably has a story that is continued from earlier games, a story they have missed. Being a crpg it will probably have some basic core mechanics that the customer haven't liked so far. Etc.

I personally don't like fps so I would never pick up a game tagged with fps, no matter how hyped it becomes. And I buy neither books, games or movie sequels without getting the the original first unless I can find confirmation that their stories are independent from each other.

SEX!!! HYPE!!! MARKETING!!! why does anyone? Baldur's Gate will be the sexy new game when it comes out, and between reviews and word of mouth, I'm sure lots of people will try it out. We live in an age where Yakuza 6 is burning up the charts, what does that tell you?
Posted By: Abits Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 08:01 AM
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by Abits

Quote
First of all. This game,, even though it might become great, is not the best thing since slized bread. It's a crpg. The third iteration in its series. People that haven't been interested in crpgs before have absoluly no reason becoming interested in this one. Not when the title has the number "3" in it. Some people might pick it up based on hype in media but not the majority. The majority of players bying this game will be people that has either fond memories of earlier Baldur's Gate games, likes D&D/fantasy crpgs or liked Larians previous releases and hopes this will have the same quality.

Without proper data you can't know for sure you are right. Honestly I'm not sure you are


I can ofc be wrong, I'm not all knowing. But from a logic point of view...why would someone that hasn't been interested in crpgs before, suddently pick this game up? With the game being titled 3 it tells the customer it's not the first iteration and therefor probably has a story that is continued from earlier games, a story they have missed. Being a crpg it will probably have some basic core mechanics that the customer haven't liked so far. Etc.

I personally don't like fps so I would never pick up a game tagged with fps, no matter how hyped it becomes. And I buy neither books, games or movie sequels without getting the the original first unless I can find confirmation that their stories are independent from each other.

Sozz answered it rather well on the comment below yours. I also think the fact that all the big gaming journalism sites already reviewed it even though it's early access (they didn't do the same for say, solasta) is also a small indication. I also can hardly believe that all the people who bought the game are hardcore bg fans. if that was true, why other crpgs don't get the same numbers?
Originally Posted by Sozz
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by Abits

Quote
First of all. This game,, even though it might become great, is not the best thing since slized bread. It's a crpg. The third iteration in its series. People that haven't been interested in crpgs before have absoluly no reason becoming interested in this one. Not when the title has the number "3" in it. Some people might pick it up based on hype in media but not the majority. The majority of players bying this game will be people that has either fond memories of earlier Baldur's Gate games, likes D&D/fantasy crpgs or liked Larians previous releases and hopes this will have the same quality.

Without proper data you can't know for sure you are right. Honestly I'm not sure you are


I can ofc be wrong, I'm not all knowing. But from a logic point of view...why would someone that hasn't been interested in crpgs before, suddently pick this game up? With the game being titled 3 it tells the customer it's not the first iteration and therefor probably has a story that is continued from earlier games, a story they have missed. Being a crpg it will probably have some basic core mechanics that the customer haven't liked so far. Etc.

I personally don't like fps so I would never pick up a game tagged with fps, no matter how hyped it becomes. And I buy neither books, games or movie sequels without getting the the original first unless I can find confirmation that their stories are independent from each other.

SEX!!! HYPE!!! MARKETING!!! why does anyone? Baldur's Gate will be the sexy new game when it comes out, and between reviews and word of mouth, I'm sure lots of people will try it out. We live in an age where Yakuza 6 is burning up the charts, what does that tell you?



As I said, I might be wrong. But overall I strongly believe people, especially on forums like this, overhype the game to extremes. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the game will sell well. just look at the EA. But I don't think it will reach that far outside the common rpg market. And that's ok. It's not a niche market.

Believe it or not, but yesterday I discovered that a friend of mine, a person that spends atleast 8hours a day gaming, and has done so the last 17 years, had never even heard about Baldur's Gate. or neverwinter, or icewind dale, or any similar crpgs. Because he simply don't like that genre. But you can be damned sure he keeps tag on every single little news he can find about up coming games that does interest him.
Posted By: Sozz Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 08:20 AM
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
As I said, I might be wrong. But overall I strongly believe people, especially on forums like this, overhype the game to extremes. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the game will sell well. just look at the EA. But I don't think it will reach that far outside the common rpg market. And that's ok. It's not a niche market.

Believe it or not, but yesterday I discovered that a friend of mine, a person that spends atleast 8hours a day gaming, and has done so the last 17 years, had never even heard about Baldur's Gate. or neverwinter, or icewind dale, or any similar crpgs. Because he simply don't like that genre. But you can be damned sure he keeps tag on every single little news he can find about up coming games that does interest him.
So 50% of players have heard of Baldur's Gate? smile
RPGs might not do Call of Duty numbers, but they're still a significant segment of PC gaming, add to that the renaissance D&D has been enjoying with 5e and you'll find the decision to make Baldur's Gate 3 now was not arbitrary.
Posted By: Abits Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 08:28 AM
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon

As I said, I might be wrong. But overall I strongly believe people, especially on forums like this, overhype the game to extremes. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the game will sell well. just look at the EA. But I don't think it will reach that far outside the common rpg market. And that's ok. It's not a niche market.

Believe it or not, but yesterday I discovered that a friend of mine, a person that spends atleast 8hours a day gaming, and has done so the last 17 years, had never even heard about Baldur's Gate. or neverwinter, or icewind dale, or any similar crpgs. Because he simply don't like that genre. But you can be damned sure he keeps tag on every single little news he can find about up coming games that does interest him.

Your logic is sound, but I think your grouping of this game with the crpg genre although true in reality, is not exactly how this game is perceived. I can definitely see for example people who played dragon age inquisition and the Witcher 3 being drawn to this game much more than to any other crpg of its kind. People tend to underestimate the cinematic presentation on this forum, but I think it is important to draw people in. And I think the crowd of the Witcher 3/dragon age games are kinda hungry for a new game that is not isometric text based hardcore but doesn't compromise on other RPG elements of story and choice
Originally Posted by Sozz
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
As I said, I might be wrong. But overall I strongly believe people, especially on forums like this, overhype the game to extremes. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the game will sell well. just look at the EA. But I don't think it will reach that far outside the common rpg market. And that's ok. It's not a niche market.

Believe it or not, but yesterday I discovered that a friend of mine, a person that spends atleast 8hours a day gaming, and has done so the last 17 years, had never even heard about Baldur's Gate. or neverwinter, or icewind dale, or any similar crpgs. Because he simply don't like that genre. But you can be damned sure he keeps tag on every single little news he can find about up coming games that does interest him.
So 50% of players have heard of Baldur's Gate? smile
RPGs might not do Call of Duty numbers, but they're still a significant segment of PC gaming, add to that the renaissance D&D has been enjoying with 5e and you'll find the decision to make Baldur's Gate 3 now was not arbitrary.


im not sure you actually read what i wrote. I myself stated that the rpg market is not small. And just because I revealed that there are gamers that haven't heard about the game or shows any interest in it doesn''t make me state that this equals 50% of the world population interested in computer gaming or even that I believe so myself.

If you want to defend your conviction that's fine but I ask of you to not put words in my mouth. It's bad manner and your whole response implies poor reading comprehension.
Tons of people played, and love, the Witcher 3, who never ever played the previous Witcher games, or even wanted to. Tons of people played, and love, Skyrim, who never ever played any previous Elder Scrolls games, or even wanted to. Tons of people played Fallout 4 and it was their first Fallout game (how sad for them). Tons of people played the Final Fantasy 7 Remake who never played the original FF7, or any Final Fantasys that came before it.

The broad, general gaming audience (not specific niche subsets like us) is not interested in games which are old. They are interested in games which are new, and have a lot of hype. They don't care if there were previous titles in a series, they just want to play the new, pretty, popular game that they hear a lot of other people saying is good.

I've seen a bunch of people playing BG3 who don't even play this type of RPG, it's literally their first isometric party-based RPG, their first game based on D&D. They are mostly lost, but also having fun. Because it's a fun game. Those people are never going to come onto these forums and post feedback. They're fine with how it is.
Posted By: Warlocke Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 09:40 AM
Originally Posted by Sozz
Warlocke
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Being decisive and making the right choices. A person who does that would naturally rise to the position of a leader is most groups of strangers. Why did the NPCs all submit to letting the Bhaalspawn assume leadership in BG1? The same reason. Nobody in the party knew their heritage until towards the end of the game.
This is a very good point

counter-point, everyone followed the Bhaalspawn because games are poorly written; with the unwarranted assumption that you are the protagonist. In other words you're the protagonist because you're the protagonist...

I also would like to point out that very 'decisive' people who go around saying they're making 'right' choices are as liable to find themselves leading only themselves.


BG3 never gives you the option to go around announcing that you are making the right choices, so that isn’t applicable. As it is, you either make the right choices in the eyes of your party and the express approval or at some point they will leave. I see no problem here.

Quote
What genre is that? RPG? Then I'm not...I thought you were in favor of more narrative freedom ;p I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here.


How many player driven, narrative focused, party based RPGs can you list where you don’t play as the leader? The central conceit of this genre is that you are making choices that direct the story as well as tactical choices to one extent or another. This sub genre of RPGs could accurately be called leadership sims. If you don’t want to play as the leader then you are playing the wrong genre of video games. It’s like wanting to play a WW2 FPS where you don’t shoot guns.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 10:37 AM
Originally Posted by Warlocke

Why did the NPCs all submit to letting the Bhaalspawn assume leadership in BG1? The same reason. Nobody in the party knew their heritage until towards the end of the game.

To be honest, BG1 doesn’t have many choices to make. As such I don’t think there is much clash of what companions and what you would do. Imoen definitely isn’t a leader, so it makes sense she sticks with big brother. Khalid and Jaheira were tasked with keeping you safe, and they point you toward your next objective, so in a way you the player are to follow they direction. Actually, if I remember well most early companions tell you where they go and it just happens to be the place you should be going it (neat, organic guiding through the open world!). Minsc/Edwin send you on another quest, and will turn on you if you won’t do it within a short period of time. Perhaps, simply lack of companion content didnt lead to question, why they would follow PC - just another meat bag to add to your squad.
Posted By: Sozz Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 02:12 PM
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
Originally Posted by Sozz
Originally Posted by PrivateRaccoon
As I said, I might be wrong. But overall I strongly believe people, especially on forums like this, overhype the game to extremes. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure the game will sell well. just look at the EA. But I don't think it will reach that far outside the common rpg market. And that's ok. It's not a niche market.

Believe it or not, but yesterday I discovered that a friend of mine, a person that spends atleast 8hours a day gaming, and has done so the last 17 years, had never even heard about Baldur's Gate. or neverwinter, or icewind dale, or any similar crpgs. Because he simply don't like that genre. But you can be damned sure he keeps tag on every single little news he can find about up coming games that does interest him.
So 50% of players have heard of Baldur's Gate? smile
RPGs might not do Call of Duty numbers, but they're still a significant segment of PC gaming, add to that the renaissance D&D has been enjoying with 5e and you'll find the decision to make Baldur's Gate 3 now was not arbitrary.


im not sure you actually read what i wrote. I myself stated that the rpg market is not small. And just because I revealed that there are gamers that haven't heard about the game or shows any interest in it doesn''t make me state that this equals 50% of the world population interested in computer gaming or even that I believe so myself.

If you want to defend your conviction that's fine but I ask of you to not put words in my mouth. It's bad manner and your whole response implies poor reading comprehension.
Sorry, it was just a joke, between you and your friend, 50% of gamers had heard of Baldur's Gate, that's all.
Posted By: Warlocke Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 03:03 PM
Listen, I’m not bringing this up to be a dick since I know you aren’t doing this on purpose, but I’ve noticed that you have a habit of asking somebody a question and then replying to the answer with “that’s not what we are talking about,” but it is what the topic—at least tangentially—is about because YOU are the one that asked the question. I’m not trying to convince you of anything, I’m just being polite and answering your questions. Being told that my answers to questions you asked are irrelevant is so aggravating it makes me not want to respond to you at all.

That and dropping random bits of Latin into your sentences to make them sound elevated. Literally on the first day of law school they told us never to do that. Lawyers eventually learned that it just annoys people. XD
Posted By: Sozz Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 03:11 PM
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Originally Posted by Sozz
Warlocke
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Being decisive and making the right choices. A person who does that would naturally rise to the position of a leader is most groups of strangers. Why did the NPCs all submit to letting the Bhaalspawn assume leadership in BG1? The same reason. Nobody in the party knew their heritage until towards the end of the game.
This is a very good point

counter-point, everyone followed the Bhaalspawn because games are poorly written; with the unwarranted assumption that you are the protagonist. In other words you're the protagonist because you're the protagonist...

I also would like to point out that very 'decisive' people who go around saying they're making 'right' choices are as liable to find themselves leading only themselves.


BG3 never gives you the option to go around announcing that you are making the right choices, so that isn’t applicable. As it is, you either make the right choices in the eyes of your party and the express approval or at some point they will leave. I see no problem here.
I'm glad you also see it as poor writting.

One thing BG3 does do is establish pretty clearly why none of your companions should look to you for leadership, even if you are an 18 CHA martinet. But unless I've misunderstood something, this isn't a topic about what BG3 is doing right or wrong, it's a topic about what we'd like to see it do, and RPGs in general, in this case I would actually like to see more thought given to party dynamics, beyond you are the Chosen, they follow or leave.
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Originally Posted by Sozz
What genre is that? RPG? Then I'm not...I thought you were in favor of more narrative freedom ;p I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here.

How many player driven, narrative focused, party based RPGs can you list where you don’t play as the leader? The central conceit of this genre is that you are making choices that direct the story as well as tactical choices to one extent or another. This sub genre of RPGs could accurately be called leadership sims. If you don’t want to play as the leader then you are playing the wrong genre of video games. It’s like wanting to play a WW2 FPS where you don’t shoot guns.
There aren't many player driven narrative focused party based RPGs that don't cast you, pro forma, as the leader, but this isn't a discussion about what games are it's about what I would like games to be.(and for a record there are a few at least if you get into the text-only levels of game, and maybe some game mods too) and just to be clear, not being the leader is not the same as not having any narrative agency.
I agree with you that the reason people play these games is to experience interactive storytelling, you're given scenarios and opportunities to effect the outcome through your choices, none of that is mutually exclusive with the above statement.

That said the point I was really making there was how limited the concept of player freedom could seriously be treated in video games. I'm not sure a custom mc gives you more freedom than a origin pc, I suspect it just takes things away, and from what I'm hearing a lot of people are happy to head-cannon their way into a better story.
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Listen, I’m not bringing this up to be a dick since I know you aren’t doing this on purpose, but I’ve noticed that you have a habit of asking somebody a question and then replying to the answer with “that’s not what we are talking about,” but it is what the topic—at least tangentially—is about because YOU are the one that asked the question. I’m not trying to convince you of anything, I’m just being polite and answering your questions. Being told that my answers to questions you asked are irrelevant is so aggravating it makes me not want to respond to you at all.

That and dropping random bits of Latin into your sentences to make them sound elevated. Literally on the first day of law school they told us never to do that. Lawyers eventually learned that it just annoys people. XD

There's nothing eleveated about talking about game design :p but I'm glad you told me I was being abrasive. I would like better if you explained to me how it is connected, I want to be convinced, otherwise I wouldn't be in a forum talking about these things.
....ipso facto, ergo, mutant mutandis...carthago delenda est etc. there now maybe I've got it out of my system...
Posted By: Dexai Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 03:14 PM
If this site had upvotes I'd give you two both +1 for being mature and sociable
Posted By: Warlocke Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 03:32 PM
Originally Posted by Sozz

There's nothing eleveated about talking about game design :p but I'm glad you told me I was being abrasive. I would like better if you explained to me how it is connected, I want to be convinced, otherwise I wouldn't be in a forum talking about these things.
ipso facto, ergo, mutant mutandis...carthago delenda est etc.


Hey, no worries. Like I said, I know it wasn’t intentional, and intention is a thing I think everybody struggles to accurately articulate into their posts at times.

If you are looking for a persuasive argument you got the wrong nerd, though. I’m far too comfortable with other people disagreeing with me to bother changing anybody’s mind here. Plus, I approach these games so idiosyncratically that I know right off the bat that my own opinions don’t track on to the vast majority of players.

I have just as much fun playing with 4 custom characters as I do with companions, no matter how well they are written. I’m perfectly content to schizophrenically headcanon multiple backstories, party banter, campfire discussions, inter-party dynamics, and even party member rivalries. It’s a very mastabatory style of role play. 😂
Posted By: Sozz Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 03:38 PM
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Hey, no worries. Like I said, I know it wasn’t intentional, and intention is a thing I think everybody struggles to accurately articulate into their posts at times.

If you are looking for a persuasive argument you got the wrong nerd, though. I’m far too comfortable with other people disagreeing with me to bother changing anybody’s mind here. Plus, I approach these games so idiosyncratically that I know right off the bat that my own opinions don’t track on to the vast majority of players.

I have just as much fun playing with 4 custom characters as I do with companions, no matter how well they are written. I’m perfectly content to schizophrenically headcanon multiple backstories, party banter, campfire discussions, inter-party dynamics, and even party member rivalries. It’s a very mastabatory style of role play. 😂
At the end of the day I think I just envy people who can play like that, If try to just play with a head-canon like that I just get self-conscious, how fucked-up is that in a single-player experience frown
Posted By: Grantig Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 04:16 PM
Originally Posted by KillerRabbit

Originally Posted by tsundokugames
The issue is that Larian's past games make "Origin" characters more relevant to the story than custom created characters.


Exactly. My custom character in DOS2 was there to carry Fane's luggage.


+1 for truth.
Also, funny post.
Posted By: trengilly Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 23/11/20 11:54 PM
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
Tons of people played, and love, the Witcher 3, who never ever played the previous Witcher games, or even wanted to. Tons of people played, and love, Skyrim, who never ever played any previous Elder Scrolls games, or even wanted to. Tons of people played Fallout 4 and it was their first Fallout game (how sad for them). Tons of people played the Final Fantasy 7 Remake who never played the original FF7, or any Final Fantasys that came before it.

The broad, general gaming audience (not specific niche subsets like us) is not interested in games which are old. They are interested in games which are new, and have a lot of hype. They don't care if there were previous titles in a series, they just want to play the new, pretty, popular game that they hear a lot of other people saying is good.

I've seen a bunch of people playing BG3 who don't even play this type of RPG, it's literally their first isometric party-based RPG, their first game based on D&D. They are mostly lost, but also having fun. Because it's a fun game. Those people are never going to come onto these forums and post feedback. They're fine with how it is.

Yeah, I'm always amazed by that. 60% of the people who played Mass Effect 3 did not play or import a character from Mass Effect 2 (let alone ME 1). Kind of mind boggling but there you go!
Posted By: Zarna Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 24/11/20 05:47 AM
Originally Posted by mrfuji3

I guess a specific example is in homebrew (sometimes even in premade modules, depending on the DM), the DM can often incorporate part of your background into the story. Find your lost lover, avenge your parents, reclaim your birthright, introduction of an NPC that is from your background, etc. This greatly helps me, at least, to rp my character and feel like they're a real part in the world.

Obviously, I don't expect BG3 to have this type of thing due to the vast amount of work/permutations it'd require. But there's some happy middle ground between headcannon-only Tav and ^.

Of course, Larian could already plan to do something like this in Act 2, in which case great! ^_^

I see what you are getting at, most characters I play do not have some driving goal but their background is definitely incorporated somehow by the DM. I guess I am used to games where you are one thing (prisoner, soldier/lawyer, etc) and your background details are all headcanon, pretty much like what we have here. In these games, the goal is determined by the game ("I have to find my...." being fairly common), there are of course side quests, but background doesn't play any part.

Originally Posted by Sozz

I'm sorry I made this confusing, I didn't mean rolling your background, the impartial third-party I'm talking about is the game, our "mechanical DM", making a headcannon around the scant particulars given us in character creation is one thing, but only what is in the game can be observed, reacted to, and incorporated into the story, which is what I'm after most.

I'm also for a more robust system of traits, or similar, to customize our MC with, for the same reason.

Traits and similar stuff would be nice.

Originally Posted by Firesnakearies

I've seen a bunch of people playing BG3 who don't even play this type of RPG, it's literally their first isometric party-based RPG, their first game based on D&D. They are mostly lost, but also having fun. Because it's a fun game. Those people are never going to come onto these forums and post feedback. They're fine with how it is.

I don't usually get into isometric games at all, prefer TPS, survival, and open world rpg types. I was actually surprised that I enjoy this one as much as I do, only got it because my DnD group were also getting it and we planned to play our characters here to see what they would do, which hasn't happened yet ofc. I don't mind testing though, so will post feedback and other stuff, and will definitely play it a few times once released.

Originally Posted by Wormerine

Perhaps, simply lack of companion content didnt lead to question, why they would follow PC - just another meat bag to add to your squad.

From my limited play of this (I got to BG and stopped, can't really get into it) I agree about the meat bag companions. I didn't feel like a leader, more like an observer. The game pretty much directs you to go to places and if you have characters of different alignments going to the same place, you can't even get them to cooperate long enough to get there. Then they make snarky remarks about how you do things instead of you being able to have an adult conversation with them about why. Dorn feels the least like a meat shield, probably because he actually had a quest line. Imoen is like the pesky younger sister I never had, the rest are pretty much forgettable except wanting to shove Minsc's morals up his arse. Got rid of him as soon as his miniquest was done.

Originally Posted by Warlocke

I have just as much fun playing with 4 custom characters as I do with companions, no matter how well they are written. I’m perfectly content to schizophrenically headcanon multiple backstories, party banter, campfire discussions, inter-party dynamics, and even party member rivalries.

This is something I tend to do as well. Probably why I made so many custom followers in Skyrim. I do like the option for having fully fleshed out companions like we have here though.
Posted By: DanteYoda Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 25/11/20 04:06 PM
Originally Posted by Abits
Originally Posted by DanteYoda

Just takes a huge amount of dev time away from the actual game and adds content very few want.

Wrong. unless you have some very compelling proof, you can't claim very few want origin characters. I don't have much to say many do, but I did make some anti origin posts on Reddit and got downvoted quite harshly.

Look at all the people bringing up these things and are upset by it.. Its not just me.

And downvotes on reddit are meaningless wont change my opinion one speck.
Originally Posted by Warlocke
Originally Posted by Sozz

There's nothing eleveated about talking about game design :p but I'm glad you told me I was being abrasive. I would like better if you explained to me how it is connected, I want to be convinced, otherwise I wouldn't be in a forum talking about these things.
ipso facto, ergo, mutant mutandis...carthago delenda est etc.


Hey, no worries. Like I said, I know it wasn’t intentional, and intention is a thing I think everybody struggles to accurately articulate into their posts at times.

If you are looking for a persuasive argument you got the wrong nerd, though. I’m far too comfortable with other people disagreeing with me to bother changing anybody’s mind here. Plus, I approach these games so idiosyncratically that I know right off the bat that my own opinions don’t track on to the vast majority of players.

I have just as much fun playing with 4 custom characters as I do with companions, no matter how well they are written. I’m perfectly content to schizophrenically headcanon multiple backstories, party banter, campfire discussions, inter-party dynamics, and even party member rivalries. It’s a very mastabatory style of role play. 😂

Same exactly..
Posted By: Warlocke Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 25/11/20 04:09 PM
I would imagine if very few people used origin characters in DOS2 then Larian wouldn’t be implementing them in BG3.
Posted By: Eldath Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 25/11/20 04:34 PM
Originally Posted by pinklily
Genuinely curious since I see a lot of people complain about it. I don't hate the concept but I never see myself playing the origins and I kind of wish they would redirect resources to making the PC more interesting.


I love the origin system and if they took it out I would be less motivated to play the game. A Shadowheart playthrough is one of the first ones I'm going to make. An Astarion one is totally happening too.
Originally Posted by Eldath
Originally Posted by pinklily
Genuinely curious since I see a lot of people complain about it. I don't hate the concept but I never see myself playing the origins and I kind of wish they would redirect resources to making the PC more interesting.


I love the origin system and if they took it out I would be less motivated to play the game. A Shadowheart playthrough is one of the first ones I'm going to make. An Astarion one is totally happening too.

+1
Posted By: deserk Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 25/11/20 09:59 PM
Would have been far greater if it was more like the origin system from Dragon Age: Origins. Namely that you get a different introductory chapter to the game that is based on what background or "origin" you picked for your character (origin which could be based on race, class, social status the PC has). Imagine being able to play as a noble from Waterdeep, an Uthgardt barbarian, a pirate from Luskan, or a drow renegade from Menzobarranazan, etc. That would automatically make the game massively more replayable, and certainly quite fitting for an epic D&D RPG.

I personally don't feel that playing NPCs is appropriate for a D&D/FR RPG. True RPGs should be about making your own character, instead of playing something made by someone else.
Originally Posted by deserk
Would have been far greater if it was more like the origin system from Dragon Age: Origins. Namely that you get a different introductory chapter to the game that is based on what background or "origin" you picked for your character (origin which could be based on race, class, social status the PC has). Imagine being able to play as a noble from Waterdeep, an Uthgardt barbarian, a pirate from Luskan, or a drow renegade from Menzobarranazan, etc. That would automatically make the game massively more replayable, and certainly quite fitting for an epic D&D RPG.

I personally don't feel that playing NPCs is appropriate for a D&D/FR RPG. True RPGs should be about making your own character, instead of playing something made by someone else.

i've been replaying da:o and the origin aspect is terrible imo, the worst part of the game: forced into a very small number of preset "origin stories" with no option to opt out. If being forced to play through a fixed "human noble" path or "poor dwarf" path is what comes to mind when you think of "making your own character" then idk what sort of da:o nostalgia people are still getting 2020 mileage from.
Posted By: Verte Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 26/11/20 12:02 AM
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
Originally Posted by Eldath
Originally Posted by pinklily
Genuinely curious since I see a lot of people complain about it. I don't hate the concept but I never see myself playing the origins and I kind of wish they would redirect resources to making the PC more interesting.


I love the origin system and if they took it out I would be less motivated to play the game. A Shadowheart playthrough is one of the first ones I'm going to make. An Astarion one is totally happening too.

+1


I have played only origins in DOS2 and it was cool, so look forward and also plan playtrough with Shadowheart. But first will be custom to see companion stories from another perspective.
To elaborate: DA:O takes away much of the opportunity to craft any sort of backstory to your character because it is fixed, hardcoded into the gameplay, and in a particularly trite and prescriptive way. If anyone wants BG3 to be made more like DA:O all they would need to do would be to remove custom protagonists and require the player to pick one of the origin characters at start.

Edit: another good way to make BG3 like DA:O would be to add an npc in the camp that flogs dlc. now thats the true to form bioware experience i crave
Posted By: Warlocke Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 26/11/20 12:46 AM
I think the origins in DAO was an idea that sounded good on paper, but in true BioWare fashion became a total Charlie Foxtrot. They had to cut half of the origins they had planned, and it’s so much work for content that is inaccessible in any given playthrough. How much better would it have been if the game started in a fixed point and then branched out wildly in the final chapter based on your decisions rather than starting at disparate points and then funneling into the same story? IMO they inverted what makes a good RPG.

Also, DAO only had three races and three classes. BG3 has 12 classes, more races and distinct subraces than I feel like counting, and backgrounds. There is no way DAO style origins would be reasonable.
Posted By: Leuenherz Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 26/11/20 01:02 AM
Originally Posted by alice_ashpool
To elaborate: DA:O takes away much of the opportunity to craft any sort of backstory to your character because it is fixed, hardcoded into the gameplay, and in a particularly trite and prescriptive way. If anyone wants BG3 to be made more like DA:O all they would need to do would be to remove custom protagonists and require the player to pick one of the origin characters at start.

Edit: another good way to make BG3 like DA:O would be to add an npc in the camp that flogs dlc. now thats the true to form bioware experience i crave


I can understand criticisms of restrictiveness, though I personally prefer a grounding of the character in the world and introducing it properly - as opposed to Larian's blank slate custom PC.

But if we are comparing Origin Stories from DA:O to Origin Characters from BG3 by this standard, I would argue that the latter is the greater offender, as it comparably takes more elements out of the player's hands while simultaneously not delivering any of the advantages that Origin stories had.
Posted By: Sozz Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 26/11/20 01:18 AM
As someone who isn't really troubled by being given a role to play with some preexisting history, I thought the origin chapters in DA:O really made that game, introducing you to the world better than any fetch quests in Candlekeep or long paragraphs of exposition before an intro cinematic. I don't think BG3 would need to make anything near as extensive as Dragon Age's prologues to make something that better establishes the world and your place in it.

Currently the custom MC is like every wakes up with amnesia character, but worse because they actually do have a history that you don't really know anything about. I'm interested to see how we'll learn about the origin characters histories when playing them otherwise roleplaying as them will be all the more troublesome.
Astarion NPC, has lived a long life of abuse by his master that has made him self-serving and insensitive to the plight of others, Astarion the PC, how much of that history with Cazador will we learn of in order to play this way, or to believably not play that way?

EDIT: and for good measure Dragon age Orgins - Next gen RPG
Posted By: Eldath Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 26/11/20 01:42 AM
Originally Posted by Sozz
As someone who isn't really troubled by being given a role to play with some preexisting history, I thought the origin chapters in DA:O really made that game, introducing you to the world better than any fetch quests in Candlekeep or long paragraphs of exposition before an intro cinematic. I don't think BG3 would need to make anything near as extensive as Dragon Age's prologues to make something that better establishes the world and your place in it.

Currently the custom MC is like every wakes up with amnesia character, but worse because they actually do have a history that you don't really know anything about. I'm interested to see how we'll learn about the origin characters histories when playing them otherwise roleplaying as them will be all the more troublesome.
Astarion NPC, has lived a long life of abuse by his master that has made him self-serving and insensitive to the plight of others, Astarion the PC, how much of that history with Cazador will we learn of in order to play this way, or to believably not play that way?

EDIT: and for good measure Dragon age Orgins - Next gen RPG

I think we will learn much of Astarion's story through his dreams.
Posted By: Sozz Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 26/11/20 01:44 AM
Dreams? Is that something that's been spoiled?
I really liked the origin sections in DA:O. One of my favorite features of that game, honestly.
Posted By: DanteYoda Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 01/12/20 04:01 AM
Originally Posted by Firesnakearies
I really liked the origin sections in DA:O. One of my favorite features of that game, honestly.

Me as well it was a very clever way of adding origins to a game and added replay-ability to the story.
Posted By: asheraa Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 01/12/20 04:51 AM
In general? Depends on the game.

In this game? Hard to tell until it's playable, but I loved it in DOS:2. From what I've seen datamined this game will be even better, so I'd be surprised if I didn't.

That said, I always do a couple of runs on a custom character first, then do Origin runs to 'get to know' the character details I missed in the custom runs. Definitely adds replayability.
Posted By: asheraa Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 01/12/20 04:53 AM
Originally Posted by Sozz
Dreams? Is that something that's been spoiled?


You get some detail in the current EA content just by playing in a manner that befriends Astarion.

The actual dream from his point of view is datamined/accessed via mods however.
Posted By: Iszaryn Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 01/12/20 04:55 AM
I really enjoyed the Origins of Dragon Age Origins, but I don't like the origin system in this game or in DoS and DoS 2
Posted By: pinklily Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 07/12/20 11:02 AM
I liked the origins in DA:O--I didn't find it that restricting for my personal role play and I enjoyed their individual stories. That said, I don't think that format would work with bg3, given how many races and classes are available. I think having some quests tied to your background would work though and would be really cool. Similar to how it's handled in GW2 but perhaps less involved. If the quests were tied to one element of your character's background then it would provide some nice anchoring in the story while still giving the player freedom to determine their own backstory. For example, it could be tied to your background as a criminal, noble, soldier, or what have you. There's already small things tied to those backgrounds (such as the Baldurian dialogue options) that we didn't choose and were determined by race/background so having some quests tied to that wouldn't take away much more freedom.
Originally Posted by pinklily
I liked the origins in DA:O--I didn't find it that restricting for my personal role play and I enjoyed their individual stories. That said, I don't think that format would work with bg3, given how many races and classes are available. I think having some quests tied to your background would work though and would be really cool. Similar to how it's handled in GW2 but perhaps less involved. If the quests were tied to one element of your character's background then it would provide some nice anchoring in the story while still giving the player freedom to determine their own backstory. For example, it could be tied to your background as a criminal, noble, soldier, or what have you. There's already small things tied to those backgrounds (such as the Baldurian dialogue options) that we didn't choose and were determined by race/background so having some quests tied to that wouldn't take away much more freedom.



That would be really cool, I hope they add some content related to your background.
Posted By: Warlocke Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 07/12/20 02:07 PM
One thing I have thought about: if are from Baldur’s Gate then we must have a residence in the city. It would be really nice if that residence reflected our character in some way.
Posted By: Fikoley Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 07/12/20 02:30 PM
There is people with origins in our storyline, how can you like or not like that? What else could be ?
Posted By: Mat22 Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 07/12/20 07:26 PM
I don't have an issue with BG3 having Origin Characters (and i did enjoy DA:O origins as well) as long as they can be customized somewhat, but related to custom chars (which i also like to play with) story and personality I agree and Larian could experiment a bit more by giving us more options to alter their backgrounds and make them feel a little bit more personal.

There are multiple ways devs can alter char background in an RPG, for example a character can reveal more deep details about her/his background during dialogues with companions and other npcs who are asking about her/his past. For example if she/he is a Folk Hero the character can describe how he/she became a Folk Hero via different dialogue options. This choice can be memorized by the game and used for an npc reaction later in the game even (Hey its you who did this and that). Let the player decide on the go and roleplay. But this is just one way.

There can be origin templates as others already mentioned which if cleverly designed basically are giving you origin characters but with no restriction on race, appearance, personality and some flexibility on classes. Personality can be altered by Personality Tags again if cleverly done.

I also like what the Realms Beyond (the available combat demo) does with your history, it alters the predefined origin text you are able to choose from (scoundrel, farmhand, craftsman) by how you distributed stats and skills, which is really cool. Basically the game tells you how your characters abilities served him/her and evolved while reaching her/his early life goals (defined by the chosen origin story). For example Artist background with only medium Dexterity reflected:
Levi tried his hand at the traditional arts of Pyrrhenia: pottery, sculpture and painting. Levi's works were mediocre, but he showed promise and earned enough denarii to make a decent living.
As you alter your stats, its fascinating to see how your pre-story changes, i think its really clever, feels personal and not too much resource it needed to implement (a lot of planning though).

Overall I just hope Larian also can add more cool flavour to custom backgrounds.
Posted By: Gibberling Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 07/12/20 07:54 PM
Idk, I like both the DA franchise and the BG one, but I think they're fundamentally different games, and the comparison isn't necessarily fair to either. I've played Bioware games for years, and I prefer to compartmentalize them as their own thing. To me (imho), they're based on different overarching narrative concepts. DA wants you to get really elbow deep in the various social power dynamics of the DA-verse. The origin stories in DAO were, in many ways, all about that: about socializing the player into those specific subject positions within the DA universe and then adding to it something like (a not always well executed) grey morality. BG3 is D&D based, so with a sprawling world and a long history of players creating their custom characters both via video-game mediation and via tabletop, and it's got an alignment system which DA purports not to have. So I don't know that one is better than the other, I like both approaches, but it seems to me they set out to accomplish different things. I think it's neat to be able to play a preexisting character alongside being able to create a completely custom one, that to me adds replayability to the game. But I frankly don't need a ton of handholding to invest into a character by having their Terribly Special Traumas spelled out to me in an origin prologue DA-style (much as I love the games, don't get me wrong)—I can invest just fine without it, or come up with my own backstory for RP purposes.
Posted By: YT-Yangbang Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 08/12/20 10:32 AM
Gotta say I'm not a fan of playing as an origin character as my PC. For me it takes the focus away from me being me in an open RPG mindset. Like I like the idea of having companions with me, and I help shape their lives and stories with my actions and choices. But when I have to roleplay as them, its gets weird with how I enjoy the game.

I feel that the big difference when it comes into the adventure/rpg game world. When you play as a character such as Lara Croft or Geralt. You specially role play as them in "their" adventure. But when you have a abstract rpg with companions and morality. Having to role play as "someone" is like capping half of the player's full potential.

There are good things to role playing an origins. But I overall think its better to just have them as a story building companion, and then as a treat, we could role play them in specific instances. So that they just aren't a living book that adventures with us, but how we role them, they shape themselves and us too.
Posted By: Bruh Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 08/12/20 11:57 AM
I love the origin system, in fact I fell in love with it when I was doing my first playthrough of Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura
I could have made a character, sure, but there were several premade characters with interesting backgrounds whose life I could totally reshapse through playing them.
I still remember my run with Merik Luggerton, who was originally a pit fighter who escaped poverty and ended up on the zeppelin in hopes of a better future.
And damn it, I gave it to him, I even changed his life's entire trajectory, swearing off physical violence and turning him into a great healer and wizard.

I loved roleplaying as that guy, and if Larian wants to give me the pleasure of something similar I will gladly take it, in fact the game would be poorer without this feature.
Posted By: mademan2 Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 01/05/21 03:37 PM
I am 100% against origin characters in their current form, it feels completely against what BG is and they are without a doubt made to be superior to the custom character that we can create as they have access to everything custom characters do plus their own origin character stuff, it feels incredibly on its head, basically forcing people to play as origin characters to experience all the game has to offer, making custom characters feel inferior. I would also love to see them just being scrapped as playable, instead give the resources to the PC character or even more towards them as companions.
Posted By: CJMPinger Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 01/05/21 04:20 PM
Originally Posted by mademan2
I am 100% against origin characters in their current form, it feels completely against what BG is and they are without a doubt made to be superior to the custom character that we can create as they have access to everything custom characters do plus their own origin character stuff, it feels incredibly on its head, basically forcing people to play as origin characters to experience all the game has to offer, making custom characters feel inferior. I would also love to see them just being scrapped as playable, instead give the resources to the PC character or even more towards them as companions.

Many companions in BG1 and 2 were similar by having special stuff only they have. Ignoring EE edition with Dorn and Hexxat, Eldoth produces infinite poisoned arrows, Tiax can summon a ghast for free and believed himself ready to ascend, Alora had a lucky rabbits foot, Viconia was a drow who worshiped Shar, so on and so forth. Many companions had strange stuff. The issue right now is the scale of it and how soon we are privvy to it. It is very possible everyone was abducted BECAUSE of how special they were, but essentially by level 4 the warlock is the most normal party member.
Originally Posted by mademan2
I am 100% against origin characters in their current form, it feels completely against what BG is and they are without a doubt made to be superior to the custom character that we can create as they have access to everything custom characters do plus their own origin character stuff, it feels incredibly on its head, basically forcing people to play as origin characters to experience all the game has to offer, making custom characters feel inferior. I would also love to see them just being scrapped as playable, instead give the resources to the PC character or even more towards them as companions.

I also think origin characters were a mistake as D&D usually means building your own character, not using someone elses. The biggest mistake was Larian using huge amounts of resources and time on developing these unlikeable characters while neglecting other aspects of the game like the UI and combat mechanics.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 01/05/21 05:33 PM
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by mademan2
I am 100% against origin characters in their current form, it feels completely against what BG is and they are without a doubt made to be superior to the custom character that we can create as they have access to everything custom characters do plus their own origin character stuff, it feels incredibly on its head, basically forcing people to play as origin characters to experience all the game has to offer, making custom characters feel inferior. I would also love to see them just being scrapped as playable, instead give the resources to the PC character or even more towards them as companions.

I also think origin characters were a mistake as D&D usually means building your own character, not using someone elses. The biggest mistake was Larian using huge amounts of resources and time on developing these unlikeable characters while neglecting other aspects of the game like the UI and combat mechanics.

I would say that since they are still developing it, most probably a lot of people like this system.
Even if you think it is a waste of resources, it doesn't mean that everyone thinks it is. For each person a different aspect of the game will be more important.
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I would say that since they are still developing it, most probably a lot of people like this system.
Even if you think it is a waste of resources, it doesn't mean that everyone thinks it is. For each person a different aspect of the game will be more important.

What I meant was, it's pretty clear where Larian spent a huge chunk of their resources on. It's like Larian has no concept of balance and how to manage it. They went all in on origin characters and then some. In the process, they neglected other parts of the game. The game itself took the DOS core system and tacked on 5e. It shows in the product. And it's almost insulting to the customer base by explaining they tried to implement the 5e ruleset when it shows they didn't.

I honestly think BG3 didn't need so many origin characters. It used a lot of their time to refine and polish that aspect of the game. But you can see it in the game how much Larian puts effort into them. They are well done, even if I personally don't like the characters personalities or backstory.

I'm sure for people who like origin characters, if they were implemented half-heartedly, they'd complain especially if they saw how other aspects of the game were far better polished and constructed.
Posted By: Aazo Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 01/05/21 06:35 PM
I am personally not a fan, and most of the "characters" they have thrust upon us I just as soon would kill off or throw away. To me an RPG is about creating your own story within the worlds limitations, not about playing someone else's idea of a story. Mind you having interactions such as these are not bad as temporary alliances, or side interests, but the current character "origin" selection is horrible at best for any long term campaign. Hopefully they introduce some decent options later on, or I will end up soloing this story line.
Posted By: OcO Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 01/05/21 08:44 PM
I'm honestly confused and annoyed by the concept of these Origin Companions and I personally LOVE good(as in well made) companions in my games.

Wyll and Lazeal are actually ok imo overall nothing OP/off about them. They are basically equal to a custom toon though maybe not min/maxed. Personally I don't care for Wyll he is a bit to fake and try hard for me. Lazeal I'm overall fine with and seems to offer an interesting experience with a race not generally seen a lot.

Shadowheart & Gale I'm just not understanding how playing as one of these makes any sense. How do you define how often I have to eat items as Gale or blow up, especially without a fully implemented time system? Do we get a page or 2 write up about SH and the mission we are currently running involving the artifact & our being a "Maybe" cleric of Shar? Even just as companions, Gale I actively avoid meeting or getting close to his Waypoint. There are only 1 or 2 items so far in act 1 that I'd consider letting Gale eat and even if I do let him eat something he'll still potentially run off and make his own deal ticked off at me cause I took to long. SH is potentially an interesting character as a companion but omg Light cleric is soooo much better than Trickster for having a cleric in your party. Admittedly to me cleric = Blessbot(especially with Arcane Blessing staff) so SH can function but not remotely to the lvl Light does.

Astarion I personally find cliche and cheesy sorry to all the fans. He isn't bad as a standard companion and possibly BiS for anyone who wants to be a Rogue due to self heal/buff.

At release I'll likely be running a 5 toon custom party(modded if not default optional). I was thinking 3 custom and 2 companions for story but I'll admit there is 1 currently datamined Origin Companion I may MC with 2 customs and 2 other companions. I'm hoping though that the current custom party mechanics are fleshed out more.
Originally Posted by spectralhunter
Originally Posted by Rhobar121
I would say that since they are still developing it, most probably a lot of people like this system.
Even if you think it is a waste of resources, it doesn't mean that everyone thinks it is. For each person a different aspect of the game will be more important.

What I meant was, it's pretty clear where Larian spent a huge chunk of their resources on. It's like Larian has no concept of balance and how to manage it. They went all in on origin characters and then some. In the process, they neglected other parts of the game. The game itself took the DOS core system and tacked on 5e. It shows in the product. And it's almost insulting to the customer base by explaining they tried to implement the 5e ruleset when it shows they didn't.

I honestly think BG3 didn't need so many origin characters. It used a lot of their time to refine and polish that aspect of the game. But you can see it in the game how much Larian puts effort into them. They are well done, even if I personally don't like the characters personalities or backstory.

I'm sure for people who like origin characters, if they were implemented half-heartedly, they'd complain especially if they saw how other aspects of the game were far better polished and constructed.

The problem I have with this is, of course, that while we couldn't play as the characters, BG and BG 2 both had a lot of characters added in, that could join the party or be rejected. All one needs to do is roll their own character, and they're already well on their way to building their own character. You see, you point to DOS games for this, and while the system to play as one of them was certainly there, the concept of party members, which is what all of the un-played Origin characters become, goes back far longer than that. From where I'm sitting the same amount of time would have gone into their development, even if we couldn't play as them. Just as dev time was spent on Gorion, Sarevok, Khalid and Jaheira, etc. We can jump some franchises if you like? What about the dev time spent on Leleina, or Morrigan in DA? Ashley and Kaiden in ME? Garrus? How much time do you think went into creating those characters, even though we don't play as them?

I get that "but it's DOS 3" is in vogue, but claiming "It's DOS 3 because they developed potential companions" sort of rings hollow.
Posted By: footface Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 02/05/21 03:59 AM
Honestly, it's hard to say whether or not I like the origin system, as we've not got a chance to play origin characters. At this point, aren't they all just companions like in any other game?

What's it going to amount to in the full release? I haven't played through DOS 2, so idk. Is it more than just extra dialogue options from time to time? If not, I can't see it taking up too many extra resources.
Posted By: Etruscan Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 02/05/21 07:56 AM
Personally I have no interest in it at all...I do not understand the appeal of playing as someone else's concept for a character in a BG game, which have always been about creating and roleplaying your own characters. In my opinion this mechanic is another import from DOS that BG3 could frankly do without.


Originally Posted by robertthebard
Just as dev time was spent on Gorion, Sarevok, Khalid and Jaheira, etc. We can jump some franchises if you like? What about the dev time spent on Leleina, or Morrigan in DA? Ashley and Kaiden in ME? Garrus? How much time do you think went into creating those characters, even though we don't play as them?

I get that "but it's DOS 3" is in vogue, but claiming "It's DOS 3 because they developed potential companions" sort of rings hollow.

Whilst it's true that development time clearly went into the realisation of companions in previous games of this ilk, we never got to play as them and control their responses in dialogue, etc. By implementing the Origins system, Larian have enabled the player to play as one of several characters, not just the main protagonist. So all of a sudden you are having to create dialogue options for several playable characters, not just one. I assume, admittedly in ignorance, that this would take up more development time than for a simple recruitable companion?
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 02/05/21 08:36 AM
Originally Posted by Bruh
I love the origin system, in fact I fell in love with it when I was doing my first playthrough of Arcanum: Of Steamworks and Magick Obscura
I could have made a character, sure, but there were several premade characters with interesting backgrounds whose life I could totally reshapse through playing them.
I never used pre-made character myself, but that’s not an Origin system, right? - it’s a superb, reactive blank-slate RPG, with some pre-made characters to choose from if you want. It wasn’t a character with set story-arch, unique content, set personality and who would also double down as a companion, if not picked.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 02/05/21 08:42 AM
Originally Posted by Etruscan
So all of a sudden you are having to create dialogue options for several playable characters, not just one. I assume, admittedly in ignorance, that this would take up more development time than for a simple recruitable companion?
Sure, but it is difficult to know how to even count it. Afterall, playable origin isn’t just a companion any more, but a PC. Does it take more time to impliment unique lines for couple pre-made origins, then create a robust set of unique choices based on our character build and story choices to characterise our blank-slate as game goes on? No clue. I do find the latter more interesting though.
Posted By: footface Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 02/05/21 08:53 AM
I wonder how many people truly enjoyed playing as origin characters in DOS 2 and are eager to try it out in Baldur's Gate 3.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 02/05/21 09:43 AM
It seems that a lot of players liked playing origin characters in DoS2, especially in MP.

But from what I heard it's not because players wanted to play an origin pre-made character : it's because custom were less interresting (no specific quest, no specific reactions to events,...)
Posted By: Bufotenina Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 02/05/21 11:10 AM
Depends on how the back story is. In Dos 2 my first run was with a custom char, now I'm playing with Sebille and I found it engaging because I like her story line, in a future I'll play as Lhose.

In BG3 for now I would be interested in Shadowheart's and Astarion's story lines, I wait to see if they'll add more companions/origin characters, I'm somehow intrigued by the high druid.
Originally Posted by Etruscan
Personally I have no interest in it at all...I do not understand the appeal of playing as someone else's concept for a character in a BG game, which have always been about creating and roleplaying your own characters. In my opinion this mechanic is another import from DOS that BG3 could frankly do without.


Originally Posted by robertthebard
Just as dev time was spent on Gorion, Sarevok, Khalid and Jaheira, etc. We can jump some franchises if you like? What about the dev time spent on Leleina, or Morrigan in DA? Ashley and Kaiden in ME? Garrus? How much time do you think went into creating those characters, even though we don't play as them?

I get that "but it's DOS 3" is in vogue, but claiming "It's DOS 3 because they developed potential companions" sort of rings hollow.

Whilst it's true that development time clearly went into the realisation of companions in previous games of this ilk, we never got to play as them and control their responses in dialogue, etc. By implementing the Origins system, Larian have enabled the player to play as one of several characters, not just the main protagonist. So all of a sudden you are having to create dialogue options for several playable characters, not just one. I assume, admittedly in ignorance, that this would take up more development time than for a simple recruitable companion?

It's a touch beyond ironic that I actually commented on this, but you snipped it out to comment on it? They can all be companions, if one takes the option to roll their own character. I have yet to choose one of the Origin characters to play as, because I do like my blank slate better than someone else's concept. Fortunately for me, it was an option from the time I installed EA up until now, yes? It's almost as if they anticipated this desire to have that clean slate when they implemented the system.

As an interesting aside, while not voiced, IWD 2 had the option to do this, and just run a full party of pre-rolled characters, or to create your own party.
Posted By: Boblawblah Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 02/05/21 07:59 PM
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
It seems that a lot of players liked playing origin characters in DoS2, especially in MP.

But from what I heard it's not because players wanted to play an origin pre-made character : it's because custom were less interresting (no specific quest, no specific reactions to events,...)

Yea, it's a bit misleading to say people loved the origin system when it's obvious that the origin characters are so much more interesting than any character that can be made by the player. It's like giving someone the choice between a day old hotdog and a freshly cooked steak and saying "90% of people enjoy steak therefore we're only going to serve steak from now on".
Posted By: footface Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 02/05/21 09:05 PM
Originally Posted by Boblawblah
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
It seems that a lot of players liked playing origin characters in DoS2, especially in MP.

But from what I heard it's not because players wanted to play an origin pre-made character : it's because custom were less interresting (no specific quest, no specific reactions to events,...)

Yea, it's a bit misleading to say people loved the origin system when it's obvious that the origin characters are so much more interesting than any character that can be made by the player. It's like giving someone the choice between a day old hotdog and a freshly cooked steak and saying "90% of people enjoy steak therefore we're only going to serve steak from now on".

Isn't that how it usually goes? A player made character should have their backstory left up to the player, rather than invented. Even in stories where the character has certain things decided for them (like you are Nerevar), the players past is left mostly ambiguous.

Games with pre made protagonists allow for more elaborate back stories for their MC. Then you have games like KOTOR that mix the two styles, but in those cases the writers had a specific vision in mind for the PC.
Posted By: Lethan Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 02/05/21 09:49 PM
Somethings to add to the pile, as I look at some of the comments.

- Larian loves their Origins. Not going to change.

- They are around to fill in the world, should someone choose to play a normal / single Tav and want some pre-done plot attached to them.

- They are playable because someone will want that. Optional.

- They can be completely ignored even now. Either by making a party of 4; or inviting friends to play with you. Skipping them completely.

- Not immortal. Hate them? Cull them.


As someone with a ... excessive amount of time in DOS2, the BG3 companions are way better done in their uncomplete form and they steal less of the limelight. I can appreciate what they do for a plot, even if it's one I hate. I just can't help but want to be at the point where we get more choices smile Larian already has made the investment - and the sales has helped the production process directly.
Posted By: Boblawblah Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 03/05/21 01:21 AM
Originally Posted by footface
Originally Posted by Boblawblah
Originally Posted by Maximuuus
It seems that a lot of players liked playing origin characters in DoS2, especially in MP.

But from what I heard it's not because players wanted to play an origin pre-made character : it's because custom were less interresting (no specific quest, no specific reactions to events,...)

Yea, it's a bit misleading to say people loved the origin system when it's obvious that the origin characters are so much more interesting than any character that can be made by the player. It's like giving someone the choice between a day old hotdog and a freshly cooked steak and saying "90% of people enjoy steak therefore we're only going to serve steak from now on".

Isn't that how it usually goes? A player made character should have their backstory left up to the player, rather than invented. Even in stories where the character has certain things decided for them (like you are Nerevar), the players past is left mostly ambiguous.

Games with pre made protagonists allow for more elaborate back stories for their MC. Then you have games like KOTOR that mix the two styles, but in those cases the writers had a specific vision in mind for the PC.

the dialogue choices can fill out your character though. In swtor, you're essentially playing a custom character with a voice, but through the very simple dialogue choices, you're able to create your own version (it's VERY limited to be fair) of your character. it gives a sense of ownership. Nothing so far in BG3 has made my character feel like anything more than a prop for the origin characters to shine in front of.
Posted By: Saito Hikari Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 03/05/21 08:36 AM
Originally Posted by Boblawblah
the dialogue choices can fill out your character though. In swtor, you're essentially playing a custom character with a voice, but through the very simple dialogue choices, you're able to create your own version (it's VERY limited to be fair) of your character. it gives a sense of ownership. Nothing so far in BG3 has made my character feel like anything more than a prop for the origin characters to shine in front of.

I don't speak much on the Origin system, but it might be surprising to know that the Origin system is probably the one thing that can potentially bother me the most about this game. Potentially because the system isn't ready yet, but the impact can already be felt on the writing.

What people don't seem to consider is that giving players the option of playing as premade characters inherently takes away resources that could have been made to flesh out a custom character instead. Not only that, but in order to make the origin characters appealing to play as, they inherently have to be constructed in ways that they're all competing for the limelight at once. They'd also have to be written under the assumption that a player may choose to play as them at some point, so not only are they super special, but they tend to lean really hard into their defining traits, so that any deviation suddenly looks like character agency. I imagine the writers are at least somewhat aware of some of the shortcomings, even if a good portion of the gaming community has yet to notice - with a companion setup like this, it's no wonder that there's barely any party banter at all, and what little there is tends to be in response to whatever the lead character is doing, rather than responding to each other.

That was the one thing that irked me the most in DOS2. The companions had insane backgrounds, but they also somehow still managed to be extremely one-note, especially when the vast majority of their personal quests usually involved extreme violence at every single step. BG3 is at least a little bit better at that so far, but the companions are just as narcissistic as DOS2's and whatever depth the DOS2's companions ended up getting had the subtlety of a freight train hitting a brick wall. I don't have high hopes that the BG3 companions could really develop in ways that don't involve 'lol plot twist/shock value event' masquerading as 'character development'.

I hope BG3's writing surprises me later on, but as it currently stands, the writing of Pathfinder WotR's companions are leagues ahead, and I believe the origin system would be the main culprit to blame for the way the BG3 companions are written if they turn out to be comparatively disappointing in literally every department beyond the ability to romance them.

(I would also blame the idea of having to kill off certain party members after a certain point in the game, like how DOS2 killed off everyone not in your active party after a certain battle offscreen. Something like that comes to the detriment of world building too - it would encourage repeat playthroughs, but it shrinked that game's focus to your special party of 4, which made the last act of DOS2 really confusing for some people because a lot of the antagonists there were basically personal targets for specific companions. For some people, it ended up being a montage of 'who the hell are you and why should I care other than the fact that you're getting in my way'.

I bring this up because there were interviews implying that we should expect the same sort of thing to happen after some point in BG3 too, though I hope this time it's sorted by sets of companions based on their actual motivations, rather than literally everyone not in your active party. And if you want to think REALLY far ahead - I would not place bets on *any* of the companions returning as playable characters for a potential sequel if the devs go through with this idea, unless they pull a cop-out and show that they got better somehow.)

For the record, I'd consider things like DA:O's Origin system fine, because it's still your character overall, and designed to be more like a guideline rather than a strict blueprint like DOS2/BG3's origin system. DAO's companions were still highly memorable regardless.
Posted By: Seraphael Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 03/05/21 09:17 AM
I prefer the freedom to make my own custom characters, or one (two) fixed protagonist similar to Shepard in ME, so I dislike the origin system for a few reasons. The most important being that the origin system takes focus away from the custom character player and makes custom characters feel generic in comparison. Secondarily, that it prevents voiced player characters - which is jarring in an otherwise fully voiced game.

Can imagine a few people liking the ease of pre-selected characters, but I doubt many of them are aware or care about the costs.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by Boblawblah
the dialogue choices can fill out your character though. In swtor, you're essentially playing a custom character with a voice, but through the very simple dialogue choices, you're able to create your own version (it's VERY limited to be fair) of your character. it gives a sense of ownership. Nothing so far in BG3 has made my character feel like anything more than a prop for the origin characters to shine in front of.

I don't speak much on the Origin system, but it might be surprising to know that the Origin system is probably the one thing that can potentially bother me the most about this game. Potentially because the system isn't ready yet, but the impact can already be felt on the writing.

What people don't seem to consider is that giving players the option of playing as premade characters inherently takes away resources that could have been made to flesh out a custom character instead. Not only that, but in order to make the origin characters appealing to play as, they inherently have to be constructed in ways that they're all competing for the limelight at once. They'd also have to be written under the assumption that a player may choose to play as them at some point, so not only are they super special, but they tend to lean really hard into their defining traits, so that any deviation suddenly looks like character agency. I imagine the writers are at least somewhat aware of some of the shortcomings, even if a good portion of the gaming community has yet to notice - with a companion setup like this, it's no wonder that there's barely any party banter at all, and what little there is tends to be in response to whatever the lead character is doing, rather than responding to each other.

That was the one thing that irked me the most in DOS2. The companions had insane backgrounds, but they also somehow still managed to be extremely one-note, especially when the vast majority of their personal quests usually involved extreme violence at every single step. BG3 is at least a little bit better at that so far, but the companions are just as narcissistic as DOS2's and whatever depth the DOS2's companions ended up getting had the subtlety of a freight train hitting a brick wall. I don't have high hopes that the BG3 companions could really develop in ways that don't involve 'lol plot twist/shock value event' masquerading as 'character development'.

I hope BG3's writing surprises me later on, but as it currently stands, the writing of Pathfinder WotR's companions are leagues ahead, and I believe the origin system would be the main culprit to blame for the way the BG3 companions are written if they turn out to be comparatively disappointing in literally every department beyond the ability to romance them.

(I would also blame the idea of having to kill off certain party members after a certain point in the game, like how DOS2 killed off everyone not in your active party after a certain battle offscreen. Something like that comes to the detriment of world building too - it would encourage repeat playthroughs, but it shrinked that game's focus to your special party of 4, which made the last act of DOS2 really confusing for some people because a lot of the antagonists there were basically personal targets for specific companions. For some people, it ended up being a montage of 'who the hell are you and why should I care other than the fact that you're getting in my way'.


Mass Effect 2 says hello. Hey, so does Dragon Age Inquisition to a lesser degree, and even DA 2. Yeah, we get to keep the full squads, well, that's not really accurate, in DA 2 they can all turn against you, depending on how you handled things, and it's possible that your surviving sibling didn't survive to the last act as well. I'm not at all sure why people are acting like this is something new, it's really not. I'm not sure how to measure the irony of bringing swtor in? Because we have comp quests there too. All 8 classes vanilla stories have companion quests for all of their comps. One comp on each of those has actual missions you need to go on to complete their individual arcs. Despite all the "it takes away from our character's development" here, there the class stories are considered the best part of that game.

Know what happens if you don't do the loyalty missions in ME 2, or don't do them "right"? The end result is simple: Everyone, including Shepard, can die. Joker and the Normandy are the only survivors in that scenario. Despite all this time, and all consequence tied to the ME 2 comps, it's considered the best game in the series. So despite the accusation of "what people don't seem to consider", it's perhaps more accurate to say that we know a system like this can work, as we've seen it work outside of DOS games, I listed a few examples here. But I have to wonder, was arguably the most popular character in the Dragon Age series a real flop because it wasn't voiced? The Warden. Is Skyrim's popularity a myth? I prefer a voiced protagonist, but that doesn't mean I can't recognize that a silent protagonist can be just as popular, or more so, than a voiced one.

Quote
I bring this up because there were interviews implying that we should expect the same sort of thing to happen after some point in BG3 too, though I hope this time it's sorted by sets of companions based on their actual motivations, rather than literally everyone not in your active party. And if you want to think REALLY far ahead - I would not place bets on *any* of the companions returning as playable characters for a potential sequel if the devs go through with this idea, unless they pull a cop-out and show that they got better somehow.)

For the record, I'd consider things like DA:O's Origin system fine, because it's still your character overall, and designed to be more like a guideline rather than a strict blueprint like DOS2/BG3's origin system. DAO's companions were still highly memorable regardless.

Apples and Oranges comparing those "Origins". In DA it was literally the Origin of the Warden. Perhaps the system here is misnamed, because while it can explain the origin of the PC, it's not exactly the same here. In DA, no matter which origin story you choose, you're the main character, and none of the other origins will appear in game. Duncan can't be everywhere at once. Here, they can all be relegated to NPC status. Having fleshed out comps isn't a bad thing. DA, Mass Effect, swtor, all have them. I've listed off others all the way back to BG1. I'm not a fan of "rocks fall, everyone dies" type scenario where we're going to apparently lose some of the starting comps. I think if it were me, I would write in a couple of comps for the prologue, and balance it accordingly, and pepper the rest of the comps out throughout the later parts of the game. I might even consider a "max party size + x" type system, to throw a few extras in a la ME/DA as prime examples. I don't recall how it was done in Neverwinter Nights 1, but it was the same in NWN 2. Those comps were fleshed out too.
Posted By: Leucrotta Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 03/05/21 06:47 PM
I admit I'm a bit dubious towards how the Origins stuff is going to pan out in the full game.

A lot of the Origin character content seems like it's built from the assumption that the player is playing a different character, so what happens if we are playing as one of those origins characters, do they...not trigger? If you are playing as Gale, can you invite Wyll over and play the 'Weave' scene from Gale's perspective? If you are playing as Shadowheart will there be a scene where you start hearing voices in your head and stumble into camp to confront Asterion/whoever and his party? If you are playing as Lae'zel and get to the part where people are starting to turn, do you have the option to pull a knife on one of your companions and get talked down by them? We know some of these character-defining scenes are going to be in (like the Aserion feeding one), but I really am doubtful that all of them will be.

One thing that I'm keeping my eye on is the romance paths, in that I am pretty skeptical that we'll be seeing the other side of them from the perspective of their respective Origins characters. For one, there is no 'Tav' romance-if you romance an origins character, you get their romance dialogues, and their romance scenes. It's written to be very player initiated, but each romance being unique to the character you are romancing. I'm not getting the feeling that if you are playing as Shadowheart for instance you'll see wyll teasing you about not being able to swim, or be given an option to ask Lae'zel if she wants to hold hands by the river instead of dominating you. You'll be following Wyll or Lae'zel's romance path, not Shadowheart's.

So I'm thinking that playing as the Origin's party members is going to come with some big tradeoffs in terms of content vs having them as companions. At the same time, I'm aware that even if a lot of their companion-content probably isn't going to translate over when we are playing as them, it's still looking like they are going to have more complete storylines and rp options than good 'ol Tav. Like I have very little expectation that playing as a custom Githyanki is going to have as much unique content as playing as Lae'zel, or that the custom Warlock PC content is going to hold a candle to Wyll's storyline with Mizora. No wizard PC is going to feel as wizard-y as Gale, etc, because Tav was written much more generically to fit all of he roles, but it comes at a noticeable cost. Maybe Larian will surprise us with a storyline unique to the custom PC that you don't see as an origins character, but even if that comes to pass I'm expecting much less reactivity from the story to custom PCs in regards to class and race at least.
Posted By: Saito Hikari Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 03/05/21 07:54 PM
Originally Posted by robertthebard
-snip-

I'm not sure exactly what you were responding to. I was mostly explaining that the ability to pick your companions as the lead character inherently takes away resources from writing the lead character or even fleshing out the companions themselves, because let's face it, the DOS2 companions had virtually zero character development and you were just along for the ride (maybe only Sebille and Fane had any actual development, but only because both actually had to make major choices beyond 'shank their nemesis' in the second half of the game).

None of the games you listed have that ability, if anything I am in agreement with those. Unless your message was more directed at someone else or the general crowd rather than me.

Still, if you want to talk about potentially losing party members like in DA2, then Pathfinder: Kingmaker is probably the poster child for that. You get the option to kill the majority of them as soon as you meet them. Failing to resolve their personal quests leads to them dying in the endgame chapter. But those deaths are for actual personal plot reasons, and they don't die offscreen.

(While controversial, it's subtly brilliant. The villain by that point recognizes that your companions are a big reason why you're able to oppose her so effectively, so she tries to kill them one by one in front of your eyes as you arrive to rescue them, by taking advantage of any momentary weakness in regards to their personalities and doubts. Like how you eliminated her chess pieces one by one throughout the entire game. She doesn't say this outright, but it's heavily implied because one of the prior companion quests involves one of her mooks luring out the companion and the main character alone, with the primary objective being to kill the companion, and that getting the main character in the process would be a bonus.)

Then again, that game was also one of the few that really nailed down how brutal a fantasy setting can be, with evil playthroughs actually BEING evil instead of just being an asshole. I had to give up my evil playthrough about a third of the way into Kingmaker because I legitimately couldn't bring myself to continue on with it (though I probably should have gone lawful evil selfish extortionist type instead of chaotic evil). That game had no voice acting for the main character, but it was really good at making your main character feel like an actual character instead of a mere observer.

Especially since you don't have to game some approval system bullshit when talking to your companions either, which is another thing that I've come to recognize as heavily hamstringing the writing of whatever RPG that has that system in the long run.
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
Originally Posted by robertthebard
-snip-

I'm not sure exactly what you were responding to. I was mostly explaining that the ability to pick your companions as the lead character inherently takes away resources from writing the lead character or even fleshing out the companions themselves, because let's face it, the DOS2 companions had virtually zero character development and you were just along for the ride (maybe only Sebille and Fane had any actual development, but only because both actually had to make major choices beyond 'shank their nemesis' in the second half of the game).

None of the games you listed have that ability, if anything I am in agreement with those. Unless your message was more directed at someone else or the general crowd rather than me.

Still, if you want to talk about potentially losing party members like in DA2, then Pathfinder: Kingmaker is probably the poster child for that. You get the option to kill the majority of them as soon as you meet them. Failing to resolve their personal quests leads to them dying in the endgame chapter. But those deaths are for actual personal plot reasons, and they don't die offscreen.

(While controversial, it's subtly brilliant. The villain by that point recognizes that your companions are a big reason why you're able to oppose her so effectively, so she tries to kill them one by one in front of your eyes as you arrive to rescue them, by taking advantage of any momentary weakness in regards to their personalities and doubts. Like how you eliminated her chess pieces one by one throughout the entire game. She doesn't say this outright, but it's heavily implied because one of the prior companion quests involves one of her mooks luring out the companion and the main character alone, with the primary objective being to kill the companion, and that getting the main character in the process would be a bonus.)

Then again, that game was also one of the few that really nailed down how brutal a fantasy setting can be, with evil playthroughs actually BEING evil instead of just being an asshole. I had to give up my evil playthrough about a third of the way into Kingmaker because I legitimately couldn't bring myself to continue on with it (though I probably should have gone lawful evil selfish extortionist type instead of chaotic evil). That game had no voice acting for the main character, but it was really good at making your main character feel like an actual character instead of a mere observer.

Especially since you don't have to game some approval system bullshit when talking to your companions either, which is another thing that I've come to recognize as heavily hamstringing the writing of whatever RPG that has that system in the long run.

Except that it doesn't? There's only one that can be the PC, so they all have to have their stories fleshed out, because it's also possible that none of them will be, and it's hard to predict who's story will progress beyond the EA zones. Because of this, they have to write them all as if they will, because all of them will, even if it's not in a single playthrough. You may like different comps than I do, for example, and we may both bring different people through, although I'm not a fan of that particular aspect.

The message is: The comps have to be written out as if they'll all see endgame, because they all will, over the course of everyone playing it. The custom PC is, and should be, a blank slate. The story of that character isn't mired in who they were, but in who they are going to become over the course of the game's story, so our "custom" story is the game's narrative.

Pathfinder and ME 2 then, which I did list. There's even a critical moment in NWN 2, where certain comps can turn on you. The approval system exists, even in games that don't lean on it very hard. If there's a moment where a comp can be turned against you, but it fails because you did their personal quest, you're benefiting from the approval system. I much prefer when I don't know where it is, it seems more realistic that way, but that doesn't mean it's not there.

But yes, generally speaking, the writing being done on the Origin characters here would have to be done even if they weren't available as the PC. Since a custom PC, that isn't making a custom party of their own, will use some of them, they need to have that work done regardless, and it's not a "we'll just wing it" kind of thing. They all have defined stories running, and the defined story for the PC, when it's custom, is the game itself.
Posted By: timebean Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 10/05/21 11:14 PM
Hi all! This is my first post (took me days to get in here! lol) --- but I have been reading the forums for a while now and have 200+ hours in early access.

I have been reading everyone's post in this topic, and I just want to offer my two cents. I think the best part of a party-based game like this is interacting with your party and seeing how your decisions impact them --- both in terms of their personal growth (or lack thereof) and the way their individual quests play out. At the end of games like Dragon Age Origins or Mass Effect (sorry -- I know more about old school Bioware games than anything else, so they are often my frame of reference), the absolute best part is seeing what happens to the rest of the party based on all you have done. Moreover, getting to deeply craft your own origin character is the very heart of RPGs in my humble opinion. No game matched DAO in this, because they had character origin stories that gave you some frame of reference to build up your own unique personality. Origin tales which fundamentally altered several aspects of the main quest...but with YOU and YOUR choices at the heart of it.

The biggest part --- I never felt like my origin char in DAO was not MINE.

And that person you create? That character? They are infinitely important. Your actions, more than anything else, impact your party members. YOU matter. YOU help decide the fate of many, in small ways and in larger, world-changing ways (more often than not). It is a wonderful experience.

Sure --- games like the Witcher and Mass Effect have engaging characters for you to play that you only slightly modify in behavior and choices --- but it still feels like YOU are making the impact when you play. Geralt is NEVER a side character. Neither is Shepherd. They are them...but they are also YOU.

The party characters in those games I just mentioned were all amazing too --- just look at the absolute gobs of fan fiction that came out of those games --- people felt things after playing them (albeit--- alot of those feelings are rather *naughty* if the fan fiction is any reflection)...but feelings nonetheless. wink And I think the party chars in BG3 are just as fun and full of life as those other games. Maybe a teensy bit shallower...but still an interesting crew. I love seeing how I impact them, getting under their skin, romancing them, arguing with them...I simply cannot wait to see how it all plays out!

For me -- the issue with the "origin" characters in BG3 is that if you do a playthough with them --- YOU no longer matter. YOUR impacts on them are meaningless because they exist in this amazing story without YOU. If you play as a custom char, they give you NO background (which is unfortunate, although I know some people dig the blank slate) --- but at LEAST you get to create a story that impacts your team by the choices you make (even if your char is a bit...err...boring in comparison).

And sure -- you get to impact your part as an Origin char too. I am sure playing as, say, Gale, might be kinda fun in the way that you get to more immerse yourself in his point of view and all -- while also interacting with the crew as a "i know more than you all" wizard. HOWEVER, as fun as that might be for a few rounds... it essentially negates your custom character entirely. Your druid does not exist in the Origin characters' tale..but THEY exist in YOURS.

Thus --- YOU are kinda pointless. The party Larian wrote feels more important than the one YOU create.

I really think this cheapens my own experience with my custom chars. My choices, my time in that world --- it was fleeting and trivial. The other characters did not need me, they did not benefit from me, they did not even care if I was there or not. THAT is what the origin char stories do to me, personally. They make my character seem completely superfluous. This, compounded with the fact that the game is ALREADY structured to make you seem like the least interesting person in your party (because you never get to articulate or express yourself in it) --- idk --- it kinda makes the wound a little deeper.

I have never had that feeling in an rpg before. Yes I know I can ignore and never play the Origin chars. Yes I know that in reality, YOU were "never really there". Yes I know one could make this argument about one play-though versus another for custom chars alone (ie, they forgot all about my druid when I played my rogue...of course they did).

This is not an argument based in logic. It is just what it makes me *feel*. I feel like my custom char is cheap, tacked on, and completely meaningless. I feel like this story is my party's story, not mine. And honestly...I ONLY feel that way because of the option to play as one of them WITHOUT my custom char in their party.

Not a deal breaker in any way --- I dig the game...but that is my opinion about this particular topic.
Posted By: Boblawblah Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/05/21 12:32 AM
Agreed. while I don't put myself in the role of the characters I create, I still feel that they're MY character. Even with The Witcher, who has a very established personality with hopes and dreams that I can't really change, it felt more personal than this does so far. I have less connection to these origin characters than I did to my soldiers in XCOM, who are meant to be replaceable!
Posted By: TomReneth Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/05/21 08:25 AM
I'm fine with it being part of the game, but I do think that an origin system aking to Dragon Age: Origins would be a better fit for me personally. I might give some of the Origin characters a go at some point, but I'll mostly stick to custom characters.
Posted By: rdb100 Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/05/21 01:20 PM
I think it could be interesting, depending on how far they go. I'm sure there's a lot of gamers who prefer premade characters with in-depth backstories. Games like The Witcher come to mind. It would be interesting to see unique dialogue options in the game and even locations based on the Origin character you select. I just think they should really go over-the-top on it instead of just having NPCs being like, "yo Astarion. Nice seeing you again." and that's it. That'd be a big letdown to make it that far in the game and really nothing happens.

As for the PC, I really think they should change our background to something more noteworthy. Ok, so now we're all Baldurian and have that tag. Our background gives us a few minor skills. I would prefer a larger effect here and even negative aspects to backgrounds. Say they lower resistances to some types of damage because you are from a different environment and aren't used to it, or you have a speech penalty because you've lived in the woods your whole life, but you do extra damage of some type on top of skills. Just having it be a second way to select your skills really sucks.
Posted By: Etruscan Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/05/21 03:15 PM
Originally Posted by rdb100
I think it could be interesting, depending on how far they go. I'm sure there's a lot of gamers who prefer premade characters with in-depth backstories. Games like The Witcher come to mind. It would be interesting to see unique dialogue options in the game and even locations based on the Origin character you select.

Certainly there will be players who want that opportunity. I would say it's not something that has was ever included in previous BG games (and related such as IWD, NWN, etc.) and that is it is why it is so alien to me here (I'm a big fan of games like The Witcher, Mass Effect and enjoy playing those preconceived characters by the way). I think it's a little ambitious to try and cover both a satisfying single player experience and a fully fleshed out Origins character system. They might pull it off when it is finally released but like much with the game at present, it's a bit of a hybrid system and suffers for being so.

I'm not a fan of the Origins system at all but that's besides the point.
Posted By: mrfuji3 Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/05/21 04:15 PM
Originally Posted by Etruscan
Certainly there will be players who want that opportunity. I would say it's not something that has was ever included in previous BG games (and related such as IWD, NWN, etc.) and that is it is why it is so alien to me here (I'm a big fan of games like The Witcher, Mass Effect and enjoy playing those preconceived characters by the way). I think it's a little ambitious to try and cover both a satisfying single player experience and a fully fleshed out Origins character system. They might pull it off when it is finally released but like much with the game at present, it's a bit of a hybrid system and suffers for being so.
BG3 in a nutshell right there.

Especially apparent is the contrast between Origin Characters and Tav. Tav really needs:
-an Origin system like DAO or
-many more dialogues where you can personalize Tav. Companions ask you where you're from, what are your goals, etc. PoE did this iirc?

Alternatively/in addition, the Origin Characters should be extremely fleshed out in the world. If every OC has even a third of the special dialogue lines/personality/interactivity of the world that is given to Geralt/Shepard/etc, that would be amazing. It will be difficult to do that successfully for 5(+?) characters, but hey it could be done. Unfortunately we won't see the majority of their quests/interactions until Full Release.
Originally Posted by timebean
Hi all! This is my first post (took me days to get in here! lol) --- but I have been reading the forums for a while now and have 200+ hours in early access.

I have been reading everyone's post in this topic, and I just want to offer my two cents. I think the best part of a party-based game like this is interacting with your party and seeing how your decisions impact them --- both in terms of their personal growth (or lack thereof) and the way their individual quests play out. At the end of games like Dragon Age Origins or Mass Effect (sorry -- I know more about old school Bioware games than anything else, so they are often my frame of reference), the absolute best part is seeing what happens to the rest of the party based on all you have done. Moreover, getting to deeply craft your own origin character is the very heart of RPGs in my humble opinion. No game matched DAO in this, because they had character origin stories that gave you some frame of reference to build up your own unique personality. Origin tales which fundamentally altered several aspects of the main quest...but with YOU and YOUR choices at the heart of it.

The biggest part --- I never felt like my origin char in DAO was not MINE.

And that person you create? That character? They are infinitely important. Your actions, more than anything else, impact your party members. YOU matter. YOU help decide the fate of many, in small ways and in larger, world-changing ways (more often than not). It is a wonderful experience.

Sure --- games like the Witcher and Mass Effect have engaging characters for you to play that you only slightly modify in behavior and choices --- but it still feels like YOU are making the impact when you play. Geralt is NEVER a side character. Neither is Shepherd. They are them...but they are also YOU.

The party characters in those games I just mentioned were all amazing too --- just look at the absolute gobs of fan fiction that came out of those games --- people felt things after playing them (albeit--- alot of those feelings are rather *naughty* if the fan fiction is any reflection)...but feelings nonetheless. wink And I think the party chars in BG3 are just as fun and full of life as those other games. Maybe a teensy bit shallower...but still an interesting crew. I love seeing how I impact them, getting under their skin, romancing them, arguing with them...I simply cannot wait to see how it all plays out!

For me -- the issue with the "origin" characters in BG3 is that if you do a playthough with them --- YOU no longer matter. YOUR impacts on them are meaningless because they exist in this amazing story without YOU. If you play as a custom char, they give you NO background (which is unfortunate, although I know some people dig the blank slate) --- but at LEAST you get to create a story that impacts your team by the choices you make (even if your char is a bit...err...boring in comparison).

And sure -- you get to impact your part as an Origin char too. I am sure playing as, say, Gale, might be kinda fun in the way that you get to more immerse yourself in his point of view and all -- while also interacting with the crew as a "i know more than you all" wizard. HOWEVER, as fun as that might be for a few rounds... it essentially negates your custom character entirely. Your druid does not exist in the Origin characters' tale..but THEY exist in YOURS.

Thus --- YOU are kinda pointless. The party Larian wrote feels more important than the one YOU create.

I really think this cheapens my own experience with my custom chars. My choices, my time in that world --- it was fleeting and trivial. The other characters did not need me, they did not benefit from me, they did not even care if I was there or not. THAT is what the origin char stories do to me, personally. They make my character seem completely superfluous. This, compounded with the fact that the game is ALREADY structured to make you seem like the least interesting person in your party (because you never get to articulate or express yourself in it) --- idk --- it kinda makes the wound a little deeper.

I have never had that feeling in an rpg before. Yes I know I can ignore and never play the Origin chars. Yes I know that in reality, YOU were "never really there". Yes I know one could make this argument about one play-though versus another for custom chars alone (ie, they forgot all about my druid when I played my rogue...of course they did).

This is not an argument based in logic. It is just what it makes me *feel*. I feel like my custom char is cheap, tacked on, and completely meaningless. I feel like this story is my party's story, not mine. And honestly...I ONLY feel that way because of the option to play as one of them WITHOUT my custom char in their party.

Not a deal breaker in any way --- I dig the game...but that is my opinion about this particular topic.

The thing is, with Origins and Mass Effect, we played the entire game, and so, we know the full outcome of what we have done. Here, we've played Act 1, and have no idea what's coming next. So for Origins, we're essentially stopping the game after Ostagar, since we're not only just starting out, but haven't even met all of the potential comps yet, let alone getting any real insight into what our role/impact is ultimately going to be.
Originally Posted by mrfuji3
Originally Posted by Etruscan
Certainly there will be players who want that opportunity. I would say it's not something that has was ever included in previous BG games (and related such as IWD, NWN, etc.) and that is it is why it is so alien to me here (I'm a big fan of games like The Witcher, Mass Effect and enjoy playing those preconceived characters by the way). I think it's a little ambitious to try and cover both a satisfying single player experience and a fully fleshed out Origins character system. They might pull it off when it is finally released but like much with the game at present, it's a bit of a hybrid system and suffers for being so.
BG3 in a nutshell right there.

Especially apparent is the contrast between Origin Characters and Tav. Tav really needs:
-an Origin system like DAO or
-many more dialogues where you can personalize Tav. Companions ask you where you're from, what are your goals, etc. PoE did this iirc?

Alternatively/in addition, the Origin Characters should be extremely fleshed out in the world. If every OC has even a third of the special dialogue lines/personality/interactivity of the world that is given to Geralt/Shepard/etc, that would be amazing. It will be difficult to do that successfully for 5(+?) characters, but hey it could be done. Unfortunately we won't see the majority of their quests/interactions until Full Release.

Which always leaves me wondering why comparisons are made to full games, instead of a Chapter/Act in them, since that's essentially what we have now. Mass Effect, for example: We don't develop our full romantic relationship until we're on the way to Ilos. That's 90%+ of the game completed. Here it's roughly a third? This pattern repeats in ME 2 and 3, the full romance arc isn't completed until we're on our way for the final mission. So people are essentially comparing apples to oranges, but think it's apples to apples. We're not even close to that.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 11/05/21 04:59 PM
Originally Posted by Saito Hikari
I don't speak much on the Origin system, but it might be surprising to know that the Origin system is probably the one thing that can potentially bother me the most about this game. Potentially because the system isn't ready yet, but the impact can already be felt on the writing.
I dislike Origin system for how it forces to double as companions for singleplayer experience and inhabitable Playable characters.

I am not sure, however, how much impact it has on writing of PC itself. Dislikes some of us have regarding “Tav” might not be necessarily result of Origins, though are most likely tied to it.

Unvoiced, player-defined characters aren’t “blanks”. Lines that player can choose from are pre-written, and pre-defined. We just get to choose of the possible lines. It is up to devs to decide what roleplaying they will support, and how wide the range of the character will be. Bioware games has been always limited. Interplay and Obsidian games were always interested in pushing the range Tod their protagonist. But make no mistake - while players can project a lot unto Nameless-One, Vault dweller or Watcher, they are still characters with their own set arcs. We can just choose how to play that role, out of possibilities offered to us.

Larian rejected that kind of approach in D:OS2. Our lines weren’t written down, but described by a narrator. Theoretically, it allows us to project whatever character, intention, motivation we want. At the same time, it doesn’t allow us to state our intention to the game, and as the result the game can’t respond to us. While BG3 returns to a more traditional PC writing, I still feel the choices at our disposal are still “cold”. They correspond to actions, but rarely intentions. We can do a lot of things in BG3, but we don’t get to choose what we want, or why we do things. I think that’s why I see D:OS2 and BG3 more as a toybox, then a story or adventure. I get stuff to mess with, but not a part to play.
Posted By: timebean Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 12/05/21 01:44 AM
I hope you are right. Ie --- I hope we get to dive a little deeper into the custom character's history (or define it more explicitly through dialogue...or...something). I guess I feel like with the Origin chars as an option...well, it makes me think that there is no awesome secret waiting for me about my custom char specifically. Ie, that playing a custom char is somehow the wrong choice if one wants the deepest most satisfying play through. But I could be totally wrong.

And as you say...it is just the EA after all --- although --- it might be more like playing through Ostagar AND the Elven camp in DAO. Isn't the EA like the first 1/4 of the game, given its size on the map? Again, I could be wrong about that too.

I also know I am likely supposed to be approaching this as a party thing anyway, rather than as a single player with companions. But it is hard to break the habit of every rpg ever! lol
Originally Posted by timebean
I hope you are right. Ie --- I hope we get to dive a little deeper into the custom character's history (or define it more explicitly through dialogue...or...something). I guess I feel like with the Origin chars as an option...well, it makes me think that there is no awesome secret waiting for me about my custom char specifically. Ie, that playing a custom char is somehow the wrong choice if one wants the deepest most satisfying play through. But I could be totally wrong.

And as you say...it is just the EA after all --- although --- it might be more like playing through Ostagar AND the Elven camp in DAO. Isn't the EA like the first 1/4 of the game, given its size on the map? Again, I could be wrong about that too.

I also know I am likely supposed to be approaching this as a party thing anyway, rather than as a single player with companions. But it is hard to break the habit of every rpg ever! lol

What we're likely to find is that the main story will be our character development. The Origin characters have established backstories precisely because they can be companions, even if one were to choose one of the other Origin characters to play as. Speaking very generally here, but all of the comps in both DA and ME had established backstories too. The only difference being that we couldn't choose one of them to play as. We don't even have to limit ourselves to just DA or ME. All of the side characters in the Witcher series have established histories. We can roll back to BG 1 and 2 and find the same thing. This is about a third of the game, and I'm not even sure that everything that will be live in a full release is available now. It could be, but as of now, I have no way to know.
Posted By: Niara Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 12/05/21 01:27 PM
Quote
The custom PC is, and should be, a blank slate. The story of that character isn't mired in who they were, but in who they are going to become over the course of the game's story, so our "custom" story is the game's narrative.

I feel like I just want to jump in here with a small aside related to character development and feeling of attachment and investment.

Our character does not need to be, and ideally, in the best case situation, should not be, a blank slate... they should be someone we can define the history of, to a reasonable extent, and play them forward from there with that investment taking root backwards as well as moving forwards with them.

I want to make a special mention of Varnhold's Lot, a side story that came as DLC for Pathfinder: Kingmaker. In this side story, you play a new character, not the character that your main game file is based on, in events that take place analogously to the main game - the two characters can even eventually meet, possibly. Now, you don't get very *long* with this character; the side story is only about equivalent to one chapter of the main game in size... but the story does some truly wonderful work to create a feeling of depth and history and involvement that you, the player, take a strong role in crafting and being responsible for.

At first, I was perturbed to have to make a new character that I knew nothing about, but who was apparently part of this group of other NPCs that she had history with... and yet by the end of that single chapter story, I felt deeply attached to the character, responsible both for her, and for her bonds and relationships with the rest of the crew. I felt their history, and it felt real... and it felt that way because I helped it to grow, even if what was growing was growing backwards into their past; I directed it and defined it, and so even though I'd only been playing the character for the space of a few days to a couple of weeks in in-universe time, the romance and relationship that occurred there managed not only to NOT feel rushed or forced, but to feel satisfying, close, personal, intimate and like it had been a long time coming. It was beautifully done, and it doesn't get enough credit.

It did all of this with simple dialogue and conversation, in a way that felt natural and flowed well... and moving forward, a lot of it genuinely had an impact; the game remembered how you'd set things up, and may of your future dialogue options were shaped by the details you'd defined about your past. There are many other ways I could have defined that story and history, too, with vastly different outcomes.

Other games do this to a lesser extent (NWN2, for example, gives you some options to define a few elements of your history during the harvest festival introduction as you talk to other characters), but none I've played has ever managed to evoke such a potent feeling of connection, over such a short space of time, than this one.

The origin system is deeply flawed and is actually inherently destructive towards the concept personal character investment, in many ways that have been discussed multiple times over by others, and I don't have the energy to get into that again, but I did want to speak to this other aspect of the conversation; There is no excuse, in today's game market, for our personal character to be a bland, blank empty nothing that serves no function to the story, cannot possibly be the leader of this group of superstars and strong-willed individuals, and whose existence is so categorically valueless to the game (even the other party members banter on the road... with each other, and never us, ever. We're never involved.), like it is now. No excuse whatsoever.
Posted By: gaymer Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 12/05/21 04:08 PM
The Origin system prioritizes Larian content over the individual. Moreover, because they have an Origin system, the development and hours spent are invested heavily into a feature of the game that some may never use.

I played hundreds of hours in DOS2 over multiple campaigns and never completed an with any Origin character.

Already in BG3, I see that you are lacking content for things if you do not have them in your party. This was the same as DOS2. The Larian experience is predicated around having them in the party, you get a fuller game, more content, more cutscenes, more dialogue, more surprises.

But I should not have to take what Larian offers me in order to get the best experience. And Swen/Larian can say all they want that they are making it to where custom parties have the same level of quality, but I know that is not true.
Originally Posted by Niara
Quote
The custom PC is, and should be, a blank slate. The story of that character isn't mired in who they were, but in who they are going to become over the course of the game's story, so our "custom" story is the game's narrative.

I feel like I just want to jump in here with a small aside related to character development and feeling of attachment and investment.

Our character does not need to be, and ideally, in the best case situation, should not be, a blank slate... they should be someone we can define the history of, to a reasonable extent, and play them forward from there with that investment taking root backwards as well as moving forwards with them.

For this, we have games like The Witcher. It's hilarious to read this here, when, in games with predefined characters it's "We're playing the dev's characters". Isn't that the basic premise of this thread, after all? "They're spending all their time defining these characters", which the post immediately following this one claims to be wasted time. Yet, the only difference between these comps, and Comps in Dragon Age, or Mass Effect, or NWN 1 or 2, or BG 1 or 2, is that we can't play as those characters in the listed games. Other than that, the same amount development time goes into writing them and fleshing them out.

Quote
I want to make a special mention of Varnhold's Lot, a side story that came as DLC for Pathfinder: Kingmaker. In this side story, you play a new character, not the character that your main game file is based on, in events that take place analogously to the main game - the two characters can even eventually meet, possibly. Now, you don't get very *long* with this character; the side story is only about equivalent to one chapter of the main game in size... but the story does some truly wonderful work to create a feeling of depth and history and involvement that you, the player, take a strong role in crafting and being responsible for.

At first, I was perturbed to have to make a new character that I knew nothing about, but who was apparently part of this group of other NPCs that she had history with... and yet by the end of that single chapter story, I felt deeply attached to the character, responsible both for her, and for her bonds and relationships with the rest of the crew. I felt their history, and it felt real... and it felt that way because I helped it to grow, even if what was growing was growing backwards into their past; I directed it and defined it, and so even though I'd only been playing the character for the space of a few days to a couple of weeks in in-universe time, the romance and relationship that occurred there managed not only to NOT feel rushed or forced, but to feel satisfying, close, personal, intimate and like it had been a long time coming. It was beautifully done, and it doesn't get enough credit.

I wonder how you would have felt about that character if you'd played an Alpha version of that DLC?

Quote
It did all of this with simple dialogue and conversation, in a way that felt natural and flowed well... and moving forward, a lot of it genuinely had an impact; the game remembered how you'd set things up, and may of your future dialogue options were shaped by the details you'd defined about your past. There are many other ways I could have defined that story and history, too, with vastly different outcomes.

Other games do this to a lesser extent (NWN2, for example, gives you some options to define a few elements of your history during the harvest festival introduction as you talk to other characters), but none I've played has ever managed to evoke such a potent feeling of connection, over such a short space of time, than this one.

The origin system is deeply flawed and is actually inherently destructive towards the concept personal character investment, in many ways that have been discussed multiple times over by others, and I don't have the energy to get into that again, but I did want to speak to this other aspect of the conversation; There is no excuse, in today's game market, for our personal character to be a bland, blank empty nothing that serves no function to the story, cannot possibly be the leader of this group of superstars and strong-willed individuals, and whose existence is so categorically valueless to the game (even the other party members banter on the road... with each other, and never us, ever. We're never involved.), like it is now. No excuse whatsoever.

I disagree. If we ignore the fact that they can be the PC, they are exactly the same as any other comps in any other party based RPG, that defines these NPCs. Games like IWD didn't have that much in the way of party development, because you could easily roll the entire party yourself, especially in IWD 2. That's the only difference. We had some basic knowledge at the start, some of which, in the case of ME and DA Origins, we could do on our own during creation. Other than that, the exact same type of resources went into the comps as is going into them here. If, as you say, you prefer to have your character predefined, then arguing against this system is shooting yourself in the foot, isn't it? Because that's what the OP's concern is, that the development time spent defining the Origin characters could have been spent defining the Custom character. I guess my biggest issue is the definition of Custom. I have yet to see a version of the Witcher where I can roll a Custom Geralt. His history is established, barring what players do in game, from 1 to 3 and any DLCs. This would seem to be what you're looking for, and yet, you're railing against a system that delivers something approximate to that, in the name of a predefined "custom" character.
Posted By: Boblawblah Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 14/05/21 06:50 PM
You're fighting a strawman. The most common argument I've seen is that the player character (if they're not an origin one) FEELS like they're not as important as the origin characters. Of course other games have npcs with backgrounds. No one is saying they don't. They're saying that the player controlled characters feels more personal to the player. Right now, the origin characters in BG3 feel like developer inserts and the actual player character just feels like a punching bag that has to earn the favor of the dev inserts. We get it, other games also have npcs with backstories, that's not the argument I've seen anyone put forward.

Also, you keep saying "it's EA" but the fact is, we paid money to participate in this EA, we're very much allowed to comment on the current state of the EA, and from my experience, EA DOES give a very close approximation of the developer vision and how the rest of the game will go. I've had very few EA experiences where the general feel of the game changed completely from EA to release. The fact that this game already feels similar to the first act of DOS2 lends more weight to that and the statements from the devs themselves about how we'll have to choose our companions before the end of act 1 is even more so.

That said, I respect your right to an opinion and I dont intend on this coming across as insulting to you (text sometimes makes things more aggressive than it was meant to be :))
Posted By: kanisatha Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 14/05/21 07:58 PM
Originally Posted by timebean
Thus --- YOU are kinda pointless. The party Larian wrote feels more important than the one YOU create.

I really think this cheapens my own experience with my custom chars. My choices, my time in that world --- it was fleeting and trivial. The other characters did not need me, they did not benefit from me, they did not even care if I was there or not. THAT is what the origin char stories do to me, personally. They make my character seem completely superfluous. This, compounded with the fact that the game is ALREADY structured to make you seem like the least interesting person in your party (because you never get to articulate or express yourself in it) --- idk --- it kinda makes the wound a little deeper.
This says perfectly how I would feel about playing a custom PC (which is exclusively how I would ever play BG3) in the face of Larian's Origin characters. My PC would indeed be superfluous and irrelevant, both to my party and to the game. So what would be the point of playing the game?
Posted By: PolyHeister Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 14/05/21 08:10 PM
Playable origin characters are cool but when you create a custom one you miss out some of the lore of the game.

Dos 2 spoilers ahead.

For example if you pick a custom made female elf but not sebille herself, you will miss the lore of scions and how Sebille was one before. Also sebille gets a separate special ending as well as fane in DoS 2 but not customs with same race and gender.

As a custom character it would be cool to have a story as well, that you can select the background of and throughout the game you get some special things only for that specific background to that custom character. Sure we wont get geralt of rivia from a custom character but in your head your character could be geralt of rivia.

However, I am actually totally cool with other characters dying that you didnt select simply because of combat mechanics. People can bench gale the wizard at early levels when he is weak then use him when he gets strong. I dont like that to be honest. People should put effort into their companions, even if they survive they shouldn't Level up with others imo.

Why should I care what people do right ?
You can say the same about camping in game but it bothers people because why shouldn't you play optimally ?
Posted By: Niara Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 15/05/21 12:21 AM
Originally Posted by robertthebard
I wonder how you would have felt about that character if you'd played an Alpha version of that DLC?

I don't know - because it wasn't released to the public to be purchased before it was at least ready enough to be commented on fairly.

Quote
I disagree. If we ignore the fact that they can be the PC, they are exactly the same as any other comps in any other party based RPG, that defines these NPCs.

Very much untrue. The way they interact with the player character is substantially different - they have the limelight, they have all the harsh combacks and snappy comment,s they have all the final words on literally everything. they're the special ones - we, the player character, are just the dumb brick that serves as the fall-person for them to be awesome off, or to treat like a fool, or to condescend to, the vast majority of the time. Further more, they are placed pitched and acted far more like the various characters in an AVN - in that, you the PC interact with them one on one, and almost only every one on one. you have interactions with each one of them in isolation, and can be a completely different person to each of them with no repercussions. This is not the standard or the norm for party-based RPGs, and indeed, they don't feel like party, at all, as a result. Compare NWN2, where almost every major conversation that happens is a group and party affair, that is actually a conversation and a discussion between everyone, the player included and other party members included.

Quote
If, as you say, you prefer to have your character predefined,

And where, pray tell, did I say anything even remotely like that? Please, by all means, point it out... because I certainly did not say anything of the sort.
Originally Posted by Boblawblah
You're fighting a strawman. The most common argument I've seen is that the player character (if they're not an origin one) FEELS like they're not as important as the origin characters. Of course other games have npcs with backgrounds. No one is saying they don't. They're saying that the player controlled characters feels more personal to the player. Right now, the origin characters in BG3 feel like developer inserts and the actual player character just feels like a punching bag that has to earn the favor of the dev inserts. We get it, other games also have npcs with backstories, that's not the argument I've seen anyone put forward.

Also, you keep saying "it's EA" but the fact is, we paid money to participate in this EA, we're very much allowed to comment on the current state of the EA, and from my experience, EA DOES give a very close approximation of the developer vision and how the rest of the game will go. I've had very few EA experiences where the general feel of the game changed completely from EA to release. The fact that this game already feels similar to the first act of DOS2 lends more weight to that and the statements from the devs themselves about how we'll have to choose our companions before the end of act 1 is even more so.

That said, I respect your right to an opinion and I dont intend on this coming across as insulting to you (text sometimes makes things more aggressive than it was meant to be :))

I do bring up EA, and while it is, the point is more when players are comparing what we have to games they've finished. We're barely scratching the surface of whatever the full game's going to be, so I don't know where my character is going to go narratively, yet. I'm not insulted, we don't have to agree. Forums would be really boring if everyone always agreed on everything.

But more to what I'm looking at, in NWN I wrote a novella describing a character's backstory before it got into the module I was running it in. Fan fiction is cool, but when I wrote it, I was running a new level in the module with another player that I didn't know, and when they asked about why I was spazzing out about Drow, I had to write the barebones origin on the spot. I later fleshed it out, but if my character had had Geralt, or even Warden level definition, it wouldn't have been possible to do. So I really like that a Custom character is a blank slate, because if the spirit moves me, I can come up with my own, and make it more interesting, possibly. Some fan fiction is better than others, after all.
Posted By: RagingYeti Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 15/05/21 12:40 PM
I am unsure what the issue here is.

You can choose to play an origin character, which by default, will have hard coded lore assigned to them. This changes interactions.

Depending on the characters you drag around in your party your interactions and situations change.

Making a custom character allows you more freedom, in some situations, to augment interactions and situations.

Kind of seems like they have something for everyone and the ability to have multiple, different, playthroughs.

Will something always be arguably better? Yes. This is also subjective.

Also, considering this is still EA and no release date announced... I would not be freaking out about perceived "wasted resources". Especially, if the resources go to something other people like. Kind of narrow minded and selfish.
Posted By: Etruscan Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 15/05/21 03:56 PM
Is it really fair to call those who disapprove of the Origins system and asking for a fully fledged custom character experience selfish and narrow minded? After all BG games have always been about the custom character experience. All of a sudden we find our lovely created protagonist taking a mute back seat to the most ghastly ensemble cast of OTT companions imaginable (that is purely my subjective take on the companions so far). Larian might deliver on their promises of making the custom character experience as solid as the Origins characters but they also promised a true rendition of a 5E CRPG and that is not really the case so far.

I very much enjoyed playing pre-conceived characters in other RPGs but BG have never been of that ilk. I didn't need Origins characters to motivate multiple playthroughs in BG2, I managed that just fine by playing a new class, race and backstory. Sure, the conclusions might have been limited but the journeys certainly weren't.

I'd suggest the inherent problem with trying to create something for everyone is that you simply cannot please everyone all of the time. A casual browse of the forums will show you words to the effect of: "Make it more like DOS", "Make it more like 5E", "Make it more like BG".
Posted By: Tuco Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 15/05/21 06:19 PM
Originally Posted by RagingYeti
I am unsure what the issue here is.

You can choose to play an origin character, which by default, will have hard coded lore assigned to them. This changes interactions.

Depending on the characters you drag around in your party your interactions and situations change.
The issues with the "Origin system" are its implications on the overall production, the way it weights on other features (or the lack of them) and not that people feel forced to make use of it.

The thing is simple: would I prefer a large cast of characters, with a high amount of situational reactivity and interactivity, or would I prefer an incredibly limited selection of potential party members, because having to make each one of them also an "Origin character" makes them exponentially more expensive to create?
To each one his own, but I don't feel particularly conflicted in picking the former.

And even putting that aside, even taking the cast entirely out of the equation, I'd prefer to see that SIGNIFICANT extra budget expected to turn any companion into an "Origin story" written from an entire new perspective being spent on several other things, like that proper day/night cycle Larian dismissed from the get go as "not worth the effort".
Well, FUCK IT; it was going to be well more worth than "I can replay the whole thing LARPING as one of my former companions in the last playthrough".

Why? Because I'm perfectly fine experiencing the narrative of each companion just as... you know, a companions. Not just because "I want myself to be a blank slate" (not really something I feel particularly strongly about), but more than anything because it's also the version of the narrative where they actually shine and show hints of having a proper personality, because when you play as them, A) you skip their voice acting B) you take decisions in their places C) you react to events as you would and not a they would according to their writing, etc.

As I said months ago in one of the first replies in this thread, never once playing any of my favorite CRPGs of the past I've ever found myself thinking "Oh sure, the companions in Baldur's gate 2/Kingmaker,/Dragon Age/Mask of the Betrayer/whatever were great, but I mourn the lack of options to replay the entire game as one of them".
I stand by that claim: it never happened, and I'm fairly confident it won't happen in the future, either. More than relying on feelings: I put it to test with DOS 2 and guess what? It did absolutely nothing for me there, either.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 15/05/21 08:33 PM
The whole point of D&D is to create your own unique character. I would never play a character someone else designed. It's a weird fetish that Larian has.
Exactly, I would prefer to create my own companions and find them along the way. Solasta does exactly this granted you just all show up at once at the table in the inn. However Larian with its resources could write backstories for you and your manually made companions and probably make it GREAT. I am unlikely to play any of the Origin stories and that is fine NOBODY is going to make me and some folks will likely have a blast playing them, I just prefer to create my own so that I know I will have a Balanced party or an Un-Balanced party on purpose for role-playing.
Posted By: Maximuuus Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 15/05/21 09:34 PM
It would be better A LOT if the were focussed on Origin Stories/Background rather than companions.

It would be cool if we could choose our background with custom characters (even with restrictions) but playing a character entirely builded, designed and written by someone else is not something I'd ever like in cRPG.
Posted By: grysqrl Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 15/05/21 09:43 PM
I just find the Origin characters' backgrounds and personalities so over-the-top that I have no interest in having them be part of my party. If I can hire mercenaries or create my own full party, the Origin characters can just hang out together at the wreckage of the ship.
Posted By: Alexandrite Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 15/05/21 10:54 PM
"Different strokes for different folks."
Some people come to this game from a tabletop DnD background and enjoy crafting characters and back stories before playing. (well, you already kind of do that when you choose your basic background in Character Creation don't you?)
Some people come from playing the BG series in the past.
Some people come to this game from playing various other RPGs and MMOs and relate it to how other games worked in the past. (that's me)

Anyway, this game allows you to ignore the origin characters if you want, and have your own custom party. You just miss out on the character interactions/conversations, and have to have them all in your head - or with your friends on Discord while playing together in multiplayer. That is fine.

I personally have enjoyed playing my own characters, getting to know the existing Companions, and am now looking forward to being able to play as one of them and see their perspective on things. I feel that will make for a richer game experience as you can "get into their heads" and figure them out more. I particularly look forward to playing as Astarion and Lae'zel - who are both my favourite companions.

Point being - I don't think there is a "wrong" or "right" way to play this game! The system is flexible enough to allow all these different ways of playing, and none of them are wrong.
Posted By: Anonymous Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 15/05/21 11:08 PM
Larian puts a huge amount of time into writing pre-determined stories for characters that we won't ever play. It's weird that they put so much effort into a closed storyline, especially now that they are using 5E as the base of the game. So I think it's fair to complain that character identities and alignments aren't designed to be more customizable so that some of that story content will apply to all custom characters instead of only being delivered to people who choose to play someone else's character design...
Posted By: Boblawblah Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 15/05/21 11:25 PM
Originally Posted by Alexandrite
"Different strokes for different folks."
Some people come to this game from a tabletop DnD background and enjoy crafting characters and back stories before playing. (well, you already kind of do that when you choose your basic background in Character Creation don't you?)
Some people come from playing the BG series in the past.
Some people come to this game from playing various other RPGs and MMOs and relate it to how other games worked in the past. (that's me)

Anyway, this game allows you to ignore the origin characters if you want, and have your own custom party. You just miss out on the character interactions/conversations, and have to have them all in your head - or with your friends on Discord while playing together in multiplayer. That is fine.

I personally have enjoyed playing my own characters, getting to know the existing Companions, and am now looking forward to being able to play as one of them and see their perspective on things. I feel that will make for a richer game experience as you can "get into their heads" and figure them out more. I particularly look forward to playing as Astarion and Lae'zel - who are both my favourite companions.

Point being - I don't think there is a "wrong" or "right" way to play this game! The system is flexible enough to allow all these different ways of playing, and none of them are wrong.

so basically, you like the game as it is, therefore, it's fine smile
Posted By: Niara Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/05/21 12:51 AM
Originally Posted by Alexandrite
[I am now] looking forward to being able to play as one of them and see their perspective on things. I feel that will make for a richer game experience as you can "get into their heads" and figure them out more.

Will you, though? Remember, when you play AS one of these characters, you lose a lot of their voice lines, you lose all of their personal exposition, and on top of that, you are playing as them so the game will either A) give you fewer choices and take those choices out of your hands, because the origin character is their own person and would act a certain way, on B) leave you making the decision, in the full knowledge that there is a "right" choice - a choice that they would make without you behind their eyes, and that you are spending most of your time acting out-of-character for the character that you're playing... or a possible C) They'll let you make decisions, but will force you to pass high dice checks every time you act 'out of character', almost like a punishment... and we've seen some evidence of this happening already. So, are you *really* going to enjoy playing as one of your favourite companions, being heavily pressured to stick to their scripts, punished for going off it, and all the while missing out on a lot of the interaction that made you like them in the first place? Because, that is what it was very strongly like in D:OS2, and there is already strong evidence to show us that it's looking very much the same way here.
Posted By: Tuco Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/05/21 12:51 AM
Originally Posted by Alexandrite
Anyway, this game allows you to ignore the origin characters if you want, and have your own custom party. Y.
This feels almost disrespectful for how cheerfully it misses the point with the "problems" some people are stating with "Origin characters".
if it's something you like, good for you, but It's almost like you are PURPOSEFULLY ignoring everything that was argued barely few posts above.

"The game allows you to ignore it" doesn't solve anything, because "ignoring it" doesn't change the design/budget issues the subsystem introduces.

Personally I don't even strictly dislike the idea of playing an Origin character (even if I don't particularly care about it, that's for sure).
What I DO tend to dislike are the consequences it introduces, the "collateral damage" if you will:

- a main cast with good chances of being limited to 5-8 companions at most (because each one will need to be written from at least two points of views: as companion and as playable protagonist with multiple options).
- a narrative that basically forces all these characters to being introduced almost invariably in the same formulaic way: very early in the game, because they ALL need to come from the same premise as the protagonist of being "tadpole owners" that share the same exact situation and go through the same exact major steps of the adventure.
- lack of other "expensive" features that I would without a doubt prioritize over it (once again: no scheduling, no day/night, no proper rest system and sense of passing time, but "yes" to rewriting -and at least partially even voicing- each companion both as MC and as party member?)
- if DOS2 is the reference, how fundamentally inconsequential (if not even harmful) to the quality of the the core experience it will be compared to its cost. Or to word it differently: how little it actually adds to variety compared to playing with a custom character and seeing the same subplot played from the companions perspective. I'd be curious to hear ANYONE willing to argue in good faith that playing a Ifan or having Ifan in party and doing his side quest made a massive difference on what type of narrative they served in DOS 2.


Not making use of an Original character in your playthrough on a personal level does not address any of these issues. It's like saying "If you don't like that half your neighborhood is burning just stay at home and you won't notice it".
Ok? But all the stores/places I wanted to visit are not available anymore and I liked having friends in the area?
Posted By: Alexandrite Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/05/21 12:55 AM
Originally Posted by Niara
Originally Posted by Alexandrite
[I am now] looking forward to being able to play as one of them and see their perspective on things. I feel that will make for a richer game experience as you can "get into their heads" and figure them out more.

Will you, though? Remember, when you play AS one of these characters, you lose a lot of their voice lines, you lose all of their personal exposition, and on top of that, you are playing as them so the game will either A) give you fewer choices and take those choices out of your hands, because the origin character is their own person and would act a certain way, on B) leave you making the decision, in the full knowledge that there is a "right" choice - a choice that they would make without you behind their eyes, and that you are spending most of your time acting out-of-character for the character that you're playing... or a possible C) They'll let you make decisions, but will force you to pass high dice checks every time you act 'out of character', almost like a punishment... and we've seen some evidence of this happening already. So, are you *really* going to enjoy playing as one of your favourite companions, being heavily pressured to stick to their scripts, punished for going off it, and all the while missing out on a lot of the interaction that made you like them in the first place? Because, that is what it was very strongly like in D:OS2, and there is already strong evidence to show us that it's looking very much the same way here.

Hmm, food for thought!
But yes I am still looking forward to playing as the characters.
We may lose some of their voice lines where they explain themselves, but I'm sure we will gain others. Also, they may regain those explanatory voice lines when speaking with the other characters? Plus now having an idea of who they are, from my PC's perspective, I will have fun roleplaying the characters' choices rather than playing as how I normally would. I don't really see that as a limitation.
So yes, I think I will enjoy it. smile
Posted By: Etruscan Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/05/21 01:02 AM
[quote=Alexandrite]"

I personally have enjoyed playing my own characters, getting to know the existing Companions, and am now looking forward to being able to play as one of them and see their perspective on things. I feel that will make for a richer game experience as you can "get into their heads" and figure them out more. I particularly look forward to playing as Astarion and Lae'zel - who are both my favourite companions./quote]

I'd hesitate at saying you get to see the perspective of the Origins companions because technically speaking by playing as an Origins character you would be in control of them; my point being that you could play as Lae'zel and I assume, turn her into a 'Lawful Good' character through your actions (it would be strange if you could only pursue only 'evil' resolutions to any given situation with her), which some would argue would go against what we know of her character traits so far. The same could be said for Astarion.

It could be argued that you already see their perspectives very clearly by nature of them being companions and being quite forthright in their opinions and personalities.
Posted By: Sozz Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/05/21 01:06 AM
I lean towards origin character narratives currently because from what we get in the EA is seems clear that playing a custom character, or a squad of Tavs, feels like choosing to paint without the color red, the origin characters are going to be more realized people, they'll have motivations and history. The argument for a complete blank slate to roleplay onto never really sways me because unlike in a game with real intelligent rule masters, these games are only ever going to be so reactive to your decisions. This has been the direction crpgs have been going since Mass Effect(?), and I can't really complain too much about it, it can create moments of dissonance between your intention and your avatars actions but that comes more down to how well the game is creating scenarios for you to work in.

If more was put into the development of an MC's background to make them effective stand-ins to the Origin characters, then my opinion would change but that still doesn't seem like what the origin skeptics are really after.

I think a large part of what makes a video game RPG more interesting than linear narratives and even table top games is that ability to replay it, changing variables and seeing how well the world has been written to react to those changes. I'm looking forward to replaying BG:III as different origin characters and seeing what impact that can have on each distinct playthrough.
Posted By: Alexandrite Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/05/21 01:21 AM
Well, if you listen to some of the datamined voice lines, some of them are the characters narrating their own feelings/responses or how they see a situation. I've played through the game twice (well, two and a half times, the half-playthrough encountered bugs with Gale's romance which I didn't finish). So while I know the situations, I am looking forward to the characters' thoughts on them. Yes the characters are forthright in their opinions, but not ALWAYS, there is always something more under the surface of what they say vs how they feel, and it's this difference in perspectives that I look forward to. smile

That said, it's probably best to play as your own character first, and as the origin characters second, so this aspect does become enjoyable rather than stifling one's gameplay.

For example, if you watch Astarion's illithid dream scene - which is incomplete/unreleased/glitchy, but someone has datamined it on Youtube -
he dreams of Cazador and his commandments, gets told by the vision that he is worthless, then when he shakes the dream off, he wants to see HOW much control Cazador still has over him, and is curious what would happen if he bites one of the other companions. He does this not out of hunger but in defiance of Cazador, to see if he even can break the rules, to test whether the leash is still there so to speak.

In contrast, in my playthrough as my own character, I got the bite scene immediately after his Stargazing scene, which I thought fit together very well. BUT. My perspective on the bite, and my understanding of his spoken explanation "I feel weak, but with your blood I will be able to fight better" vs Astarion's perspective "let's test this theory, is he still in control of me? Can I really drink the blood of thinking creatures - and what happens if I do?"
is exactly the change in perspective that I enjoy finding out more about. This is what I hope there will be more of when we are able to play as the characters.

I don't see it as limiting my play style (I have my own player character for that!), personally I see it as an opportunity to explore the existing characters deeper, and to step out of my comfort zone when playing.
I stepped out of my comfort zone already doing the Evil playthrough (right after doing a Neutral-Good Tiefling Druid playthrough, aaaaagh) - and while it made me feel awful to be slaughtering the NPCs my other character had worked so hard to save, it was still interesting to experience the different view and different feeling I got from this path. It wasn't a GOOD feeling, but it was different, and I don't want to play the same game the same way all the time.

Also, the characters' reactions DO change with you already whether you choose the Good or Evil path.
Posted By: kanisatha Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/05/21 02:18 PM
Originally Posted by Alexandrite
Anyway, this game allows you to ignore the origin characters if you want, and have your own custom party. You just miss out on the character interactions/conversations, and have to have them all in your head - or with your friends on Discord while playing together in multiplayer. That is fine.
This is NOT fine. Not even in the slightest.

You can flippantly say "You just miss out on the character interactions/conversations, and have to have them all in your head" but this is absolutely unacceptable to me. Not having those interactions and conversations between my PC and my companions and among my companions means the game is not a Baldur's Gate game.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/05/21 03:56 PM
Originally Posted by Sozz
The argument for a complete blank slate to roleplay onto never really sways me because unlike in a game with real intelligent rule masters, these games are only ever going to be so reactive to your decisions. This has been the direction crpgs have been going since Mass Effect(?), and I can't really complain too much about it, it can create moments of dissonance between your intention and your avatars actions but that comes more down to how well the game is creating scenarios for you to work in.
Yes, an ongoing trend in RPGs was becoming less of an RPG and more of a linear action games, with some light RPG appeals. Definitely I wouldn't accuse Larian games so far of going full-Bioware, though, but that's an odd comparison to make.

It might be a preference, but I feel RPGs work better if we actively, and constantly make decisions about our approach and roleplaying choices. That is why Bioware morality and "choice" was, in my opinion, never compelling. If we get to do only one decision (I am good or I am evil, I am paragon or renegade) then the majority of the game is mostly passive when it comes to roleplaying. Even game with wider spectrum be dull if choices follow clear archetypes - I found Kingmaker incredibely dull as rarely I was challenged to think what my character would do in that situation - just pick line corresponding to my alignment of choice without a worry. Tyranny is another example - great first act, and after it's mostly following the path set out by out initial actions. At least we can go full chaos if we get bored.

So yeah, having my character defined the moment I start the game just isn't very interesting. Having unique alterations on subsequen playthroughts because our race/class/background is great, but not as a main characterisation. Those characters won't be as strong as Geralt or Shepard - on a simple basis of not having the entire game build around them.

Origins will be like BG3 cinematics. Yes, Mass Effect1&2 and Witchers storytelling was enhanced through use of directed cutscenes for conversations, but just slapping camera closer doesn't automatically achieve the same effect. It would take incredible amount of work to create a game with that many well-written and characterised defined PCs.
Posted By: Alexandrite Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 16/05/21 10:19 PM
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Alexandrite
Anyway, this game allows you to ignore the origin characters if you want, and have your own custom party. You just miss out on the character interactions/conversations, and have to have them all in your head - or with your friends on Discord while playing together in multiplayer. That is fine.
This is NOT fine. Not even in the slightest.

You can flippantly say "You just miss out on the character interactions/conversations, and have to have them all in your head" but this is absolutely unacceptable to me. Not having those interactions and conversations between my PC and my companions and among my companions means the game is not a Baldur's Gate game.

I only said that in the context of not using the NPC companions if you didn't want them, and making up your own custom party of your own characters, for example to play with friends.

Of course a Baldur's Gate game is going to involve a varied cast of companions - it already has several wonderfully voiced, well written characters, with more coming.
Posted By: kanisatha Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 17/05/21 03:30 PM
Originally Posted by Alexandrite
Originally Posted by kanisatha
Originally Posted by Alexandrite
Anyway, this game allows you to ignore the origin characters if you want, and have your own custom party. You just miss out on the character interactions/conversations, and have to have them all in your head - or with your friends on Discord while playing together in multiplayer. That is fine.
This is NOT fine. Not even in the slightest.

You can flippantly say "You just miss out on the character interactions/conversations, and have to have them all in your head" but this is absolutely unacceptable to me. Not having those interactions and conversations between my PC and my companions and among my companions means the game is not a Baldur's Gate game.

I only said that in the context of not using the NPC companions if you didn't want them, and making up your own custom party of your own characters, for example to play with friends.

Of course a Baldur's Gate game is going to involve a varied cast of companions - it already has several wonderfully voiced, well written characters, with more coming.
I'm not talking about the companions or the party. I would never play with custom companions when NPC companions are available. I'm talking about my PC. My custom PC in my non-custom party, where my custom PC is going to feel completely pointless and irrelevant compared with my party companions.

But also, on a secondary related note, I profoundly disagree that we currently have a varied cast of well written companions. There is no variation at all in good versus evil. As someone who would want only a strictly "good" aligned party, I have no choices at all (No, Wyll and Gale are not good-aligned; at best they're neutral). And worse, all the current crop of companions are utterly distasteful and annoying, and I would not care to go adventuring with them as my companions. I would want a full party of all good-aligned companions who are also"nice and friendly and a pleasure to hang out with. But I am also not going to be willing to accept empty-suit custom companions. So then there is no way (at least at present) for me to play the game.
Posted By: Nyloth Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 17/05/21 04:20 PM
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I'm not talking about the companions or the party. I would never play with custom companions when NPC companions are available. I'm talking about my PC. My custom PC in my non-custom party, where my custom PC is going to feel completely pointless and irrelevant compared with my party companions.

But also, on a secondary related note, I profoundly disagree that we currently have a varied cast of well written companions. There is no variation at all in good versus evil. As someone who would want only a strictly "good" aligned party, I have no choices at all (No, Wyll and Gale are not good-aligned; at best they're neutral). And worse, all the current crop of companions are utterly distasteful and annoying, and I would not care to go adventuring with them as my companions. I would want a full party of all good-aligned companions who are also"nice and friendly and a pleasure to hang out with. But I am also not going to be willing to accept empty-suit custom companions. So then there is no way (at least at present) for me to play the game.

Yes, maybe because all our companions are now evil or neutral? Larian has already been told there are no good companions in EA, so yes Wyll and Gale are not good. They are neutral. Wait when Larian add good companions. If you specifically don't like evil characters, it doesn't mean that they are poorly written or not interesting. I'm happy there are no good characters in my party, I'm tired of them, in every game you have good characters and a maximum neutral ones. But the evil? Almost never. We also can't fully judge how well/bad they are written, because we don't know anything about them at all, except for their partial worldview.

So yes, I think we have most interesting companions. Because you will hardly find many games with evil or selfish companions, which will also be equally with the good ones. This is rare.
Posted By: Alexandrite Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 17/05/21 10:10 PM
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I profoundly disagree that we currently have a varied cast of well written companions. There is no variation at all in good versus evil. As someone who would want only a strictly "good" aligned party, I have no choices at all (No, Wyll and Gale are not good-aligned; at best they're neutral). And worse, all the current crop of companions are utterly distasteful and annoying, and I would not care to go adventuring with them as my companions. I would want a full party of all good-aligned companions who are also"nice and friendly and a pleasure to hang out with. But I am also not going to be willing to accept empty-suit custom companions. So then there is no way (at least at present) for me to play the game.

You do have choices - you are just limiting yourself, because it sounds like you've decided how you want to play the game and don't want to even try deviating from that path. Fair enough if that's how you prefer to play, but this is your loss, and a very subjective criticism of the game as it currently stands (EA, incomplete).

Let's agree to disagree?

I personally LOVE the fact that we do have Evil/Neutral companions right now, because the world is complex and even the Good-seeming guys (Gale, Wyll) have issues and skeletons/demons in their closets. It makes for a good story, and I'm certainly enjoying it so far. Ordinarily I might not have tried them either had the Good companions been available - but now that I have, I absolutely love them.
Posted By: Wormerine Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 17/05/21 11:06 PM
Originally Posted by Alexandrite
I personally LOVE the fact that we do have Evil/Neutral companions right now, because the world is complex and even the Good-seeming guys (Gale, Wyll) have issues and skeletons/demons in their closets.
Complex, really?

Though, I am glad you are enjoying thier company.
Posted By: ZeshinX Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 18/05/21 01:55 AM
I highly dislike pre-generated characters/origins and will never use one. I prefer creating a character that is uniquely my own. I don't mind the origin concept in itself, as I enjoyed Dragon Age: Origin's take on a character's origins.
Posted By: CJMPinger Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 18/05/21 02:14 AM
Honestly, I am fine with eh Origin system if enough attention is given to custom PCs as well. In DOS2 it kinda bugged me cause Custom PCs had nearly no attention. I basically played Red Prince exclusively because of that.
Posted By: Niara Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 18/05/21 04:06 AM
Unfortunately, we have to remember that the very concept that players might want to create their own personal characters is actually a fundamentally alien concept to the people at Larian; they've had to learn that that's a thing, and it's not an idea that came to them naturally in design. D:OS2 added support for a custom player character LATER; it was not an original part of their game, and it wasn't really very well supported then - you just got the basic skeleton game with none of the variable content, and you ended up by the end with a lot of things that didn't make sense or didn't tie up, because you just hadn't been presented with the content that would help it fit together.

As a more tactile example: you have a cake to make and eat, but at the start of the bake, you are asked to chose a type of cake to make, out of five different flavours, which will substantially alter and affect the cake that you experience. Then, later on, they shrug and say "Yes, well, I guess you could choose no flavour, if you really want... Okay", and then you can choose that, and be delivered a bland, flat cake with no flavour at all because it is literally just the bare bones of what is needed to make something that can be called cake, but that leaves the strong feeling that something important is missing... and the defenders response is to say "yes, well, you did choose to have that, so you can't complain at us!"

That is what D:OS2 ended up being like... and this game design is going exactly the same way, despite promises from Larian to the contrary.

This is one of the major red flags of concern for this studio taking on a D&D game, where a monumental part of the type of game is precisely predicated on your freedom to create your own character, and chart your own, meaningful, journey... so if they do the same thing here, then as a D&D game, which it's being advertised as, it will almost certainly fail.
Posted By: Blackheifer Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 18/05/21 04:30 AM
Originally Posted by Niara
Unfortunately, we have to remember that the very concept that players might want to create their own personal characters is actually a fundamentally alien concept to the people at Larian; they've had to learn that that's a thing, and it's not an idea that came to them naturally in design. D:OS2 added support for a custom player character LATER; it was not an original part of their game, and it wasn't really very well supported then - you just got the basic skeleton game with none of the variable content, and you ended up by the end with a lot of things that didn't make sense or didn't tie up, because you just hadn't been presented with the content that would help it fit together.

As a more tactile example: you have a cake to make and eat, but at the start of the bake, you are asked to chose a type of cake to make, out of five different flavours, which will substantially alter and affect the cake that you experience. Then, later on, they shrug and say "Yes, well, I guess you could choose no flavour, if you really want... Okay", and then you can choose that, and be delivered a bland, flat cake with no flavour at all because it is literally just the bare bones of what is needed to make something that can be called cake, but that leaves the strong feeling that something important is missing... and the defenders response is to say "yes, well, you did choose to have that, so you can't complain at us!"

That is what D:OS2 ended up being like... and this game design is going exactly the same way, despite promises from Larian to the contrary.

This is one of the major red flags of concern for this studio taking on a D&D game, where a monumental part of the type of game is precisely predicated on your freedom to create your own character, and chart your own, meaningful, journey... so if they do the same thing here, then as a D&D game, which it's being advertised as, it will almost certainly fail.


I am not in agreement and I feel this kind of feedback is overly hyperbolic. None of the Origin characters matter...at all. You are welcome to slaughter the lot of them and just play with 4 friends, and I expect you will eventually be able to just create 4 characters yourself and use them instead. Will there still be traces of the Origin characters and their story? Sure, but they don't matter unless you choose to explore that.

To compare running the game without the Origin character info pre-setup as "bland, and flat" is to willfully ignore how much depth is built into this cake. I am at 700 hours and still have not seen everything. My most fun and memorable experiences have been with 4 other knuckheads just kind of creating our own story and making a mess of things.

As for running into things that "don't tie up" - I mean have you played this game fully? This is a world that has tons of stuff that you only see a fragment of the story. Example: The Harpy nest, there is a note that references someone running off to join a mercenary company to pay off debts. There are tons of things that reference other people's stories that you only get a little part of the whole. There is Numenera everywhere. Example: There is an entire tower in the Underdark with an absent landlord that you only see the pieces of what they were doing there and his dangerous infernal machines left running an empty tower. I thought I had discovered everything in that tower but apparently I missed like 5 things!

Damn I love this game.
Posted By: Alexandrite Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 18/05/21 05:08 AM
I still don't quite understand what the issue is, here.
And before anyone throws smelly boots and rotten eggs at me and calls me a "Larian fangirl", I'm not - this is the first of their games I've ever played... I just happen to love this particular game the way it is shaping up, is all. I've never played the original BG games (well, BG1 a little, and this year not 20 years ago) and I've never played the Divinity series.

Originally Posted by Niara
That is what D:OS2 ended up being like... and this game design is going exactly the same way, despite promises from Larian to the contrary.

I didn't know that. But in THIS game, it's reversed, and we are starting off being encouraged to play our own player-created character. The other Origin characters aren't playable yet. Where is the issue?

You CAN play your own custom character with or without the NPC companions.
You CAN choose to play as one of the origin characters. Probably more characters will be coming.
You CAN choose to play either custom characters or Origin pre-made characters with friends, or for example 2 custom characters and 2 pre-made characters, etc.
You can do literally whatever you want. I don't understand how having all these options is a problem?
Posted By: Alexandrite Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 18/05/21 05:13 AM
Originally Posted by Blackheifer
There is an entire tower in the Underdark with an absent landlord that you only see the pieces of what they were doing there and his dangerous infernal machines left running an empty tower. I thought I had discovered everything in that tower but apparently I missed like 5 things!

I friggin love that tower! So cool. I also really enjoy finding interesting places like this, and bits of lore in the game. There's so much, and so much more being hinted at that we haven't seen yet. It is far, far too early to pass judgment or to limit ourselves in play style. Just try EVERYTHING!
Posted By: Mat22 Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 18/05/21 07:21 AM
The origin-custom character debate is an interesting one. I was working on an RPG where it was a mix. It was a headache to design it because i did not want to make compromises between the two system but wanted to make it as logical as possible. How it worked is you had to create a party of 5 custom characters, defining their race, stats, proficiencies (system was classless) and even their personality and interests using a similar Tag-system what Larian used in DOS2 and then the game offered logical origin stories and motivations/goals for your character (based on choices you made earlier). It also allowed to pick non-so-logical goals/origins as well, only exclude motivations which would not make sense for your char at all (as an example origin stories were usually not tied to birth location, skills or race, only in some rare cases where an origin story made sense only at a certain location in the world or by being a certain race or having a certain skill). These specific Origins & Goals/Motivations eventually would have led to personal quests and conflicts with each other's journey potentially, but the good thing was they were tied to custom choices as minimal as possible and they only opened optional dialogue/quest choices. There was a amnesiac origin story for characters who did not want to pick any origins/goals for their character - to balance that with XP they had a "need to find out how i am" questline where eventually the player was able to define who their character was before (and get the same amount of XP they would get with specific origin quests). Also, to make the game accessable there was a separate generate button where the game automatically applied a logical backstory from the list to my char created, so it gave the player preset characters basically.

Dialogue choices I designed like in Kingmaker, all kind of choices to be available and based on what you pick your initial personality (tags) either got stronger or shifted during the story. The party members also reacted to the things you said. They had an initial attitude towards you based on your race/skills/origin/equipment but that you were able to shift by picking certain dialogue choices affecting their attitude towards you the good way.

Though the project died I was quite happy with the character creator, it even generated a short texted Backstory to your journal, trying to tie the choices you picked during char creation in a logical way (similar to how Realms Beyond tied the distribution of your attribute points to your backstory) and i managed to make the initial party conversations to feel personal and sound logical despite this sandbox system.

All in all, what im trying to say is that i think a hybrid system could work, you can design appealing origin stories first and take the choices led to that origin story apart and make them separate customizable choices as possible and then allow the player to customize them basically as they wish (to a certain extent) and the companions to react to these. This is not easy and the toughest part is to only enable logical connections between these, but I do believe it can be made if designed carefully if this is planned from the start. I secretly hope Larian thought about this when they started to design their origin chars and their story/dialogue design process (especially as they do cinematics which are harder to redesign once they are set in stone) and eventually we will be able to customize our characters around these backstories as much as possible and have the best of both worlds maybe?
Just my two cents.
Posted By: EvilVik Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 18/05/21 08:06 AM
My take on the origin system:

Personally, I like the option!
In general because I like to enjoy and impact a great story.
I love experiencing the companion stories, and even more so when I can play as one of them.

I usually enjoy playing a wizard, but if I create my own custom wizard that makes Gale pretty useless as we're limited to a party of 4. So if I can play as Gale, it means I get to know his story as well as 3 other companion stories which will make my playthrough much more interesting.

For the same reason I read books and watch movies, I like to enjoy a good story. And I'm pretty sure Larian's stories are better than whatever I can make up, as my imagination is lacking.

Now I fully understand the appeal of a custom character, and do enjoy creating my own char and being the hero of my own story (especially in multiplayer), but being able to experience the origin stories first hand will definitely add replayability for me.

I think it's a great way of experiencing an NPC if you plan to play the same class, so I don't end up leaving them in camp (and yes, of course you can play with a full party of mages/priests/warriors/... but that takes away a lot of the fun of classes).
Posted By: Niara Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 18/05/21 09:17 AM
Originally Posted by Alexandrite
You CAN play your own custom character with or without the NPC companions.
You CAN choose to play as one of the origin characters. Probably more characters will be coming.
You CAN choose to play either custom characters or Origin pre-made characters with friends, or for example 2 custom characters and 2 pre-made characters, etc.
You can do literally whatever you want. I don't understand how having all these options is a problem?

I'd like to play as a character who has ultimately more ties to the core plot of the game than her companion NPCs, and/or a legitimately sensible narrative for why all of these amazing, special individuals unanimously all agree that she should be the leader, despite her being functionally nobody with virtually no adventuring experience. Can I do that? Not currently.

I'd like to play a game where not having a particular companion doesn't end up either locking me out of an unacceptably large portion of the game, deny me legitimately reasonable options that are only available to the 'special' character, for no actual reason, or bring me to an important part of the game and act like I should know a lot more about things than I do, because I needed that character, arbitrarily, to access the information, with no other possible recourse. Can I do that? Not historically in Larian games, and they've made no sign that it won't be happening here as well - and there are signs, indeed, that they're already trundling away into the same old traps as before.

I'd like to be able to play a personal character of my own design, and not spend the entire game feeling like I'm functionally experiencing Less of the game than I would be if I'd agreed to give up my own character in favour of filling the role of one of Larian's special darlings. Not a big request, also not looking likely at this stage.

I'd like my character to feel like part of the party when we adventure, not some mute drive camera that is moving the others around so that they can chat with each other and ignore her. Can I do that?

I'd like to have party conversations where my character is one participant amongst several, and able to contribute meaningfully along with the others... Not being the stand-in fall person whose only job when talking to companions (or, indeed, most non-party NPCs) is to say stupid things, to be ignorant, or just plain to feed them the required line they need so that they can condescend to her and show off how special they are... In the data mining, of course, played-as origin characters all have lines that let them get the better of many inter-personal conversations, or to come out as the superior one... but the custom player character does not, in almost any circumstance. I'd like to play a custom character that actually is permitted to feel at least somewhat like an equal in the group that they are supposedly the leader of. Can I do that? Not currently, and things aren't looking good for this changing.

So many elements of this game have been designed in away that dismissed a custom player character, or were clearly implemented by people who were only thinking about playing one of the origins, and it shows.. and it continues to show, each update.... so yes, I'm feeling pretty jaded about it at this stage. There is a LOT to like about this game, and a great any things that can be enjoyed and things that look neat, or are done well, but there's an equal measure, and and overbalance besides of incredibly poor decisions and design choices that drown it all out.

I'm glad you're enjoying the game, and I'm glad the weight of poorly designed, badly implemented and ill-thought-out elements haven't gotten to you yet. As you say, some of us have more experience with Larian's games than you do, and many who do can already see the writing on the wall very clearly.... and are suitable concerned and worried by it, which is why many are being very vocal now, rather than waiting until release to complain.
Posted By: Tuco Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 18/05/21 10:59 AM
Originally Posted by Alexandrite
I still don't quite understand what the issue is, here.
And before anyone throws smelly boots and rotten eggs at me and calls me a "Larian fangirl", I'm not - this is the first of their games I've ever played... I just happen to love this particular game the way it is shaping up, is all. I've never played the original BG games (well, BG1 a little, and this year not 20 years ago) and I've never played the Divinity series.

Originally Posted by Niara
That is what D:OS2 ended up being like... and this game design is going exactly the same way, despite promises from Larian to the contrary.

I didn't know that. But in THIS game, it's reversed, and we are starting off being encouraged to play our own player-created character. The other Origin characters aren't playable yet. Where is the issue?

You CAN play your own custom character with or without the NPC companions.
You CAN choose to play as one of the origin characters. Probably more characters will be coming.
You CAN choose to play either custom characters or Origin pre-made characters with friends, or for example 2 custom characters and 2 pre-made characters, etc.
You can do literally whatever you want. I don't understand how having all these options is a problem?
I'd try to explain it again but I don't see the point when you are purposefully ignoring any post that explains the issue (in fact, it's so blatant I'm suspecting I may LITERALLY be in your ignore list and you won't address this reply either) and then following with another "I don't see the problem".


You seem to think that "more options are always great" as if for some form of magic they came as a net bonus, with no compromises, when reality is very different.
I don't care if I can just "ignore Origins and play a custom character", because that doesn't address the issue. I care for everything the game had to give up to even allow these Origin characters to exist.

Let's take DOS 2 as an example: I would have gladly welcomed a game where companions interacted WAY more with each other (rather than ignoring their mutual existence and talking just to the Main Character) over one that blew most of its extra budget and manpower into writing/voicing these same few companions from multiple perspectives (read: playable or not).
Posted By: Etruscan Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 18/05/21 11:01 AM
Originally Posted by Alexandrite
I still don't quite understand what the issue is, here.

...

I didn't know that. But in THIS game, it's reversed, and we are starting off being encouraged to play our own player-created character. The other Origin characters aren't playable yet. Where is the issue?

You CAN play your own custom character with or without the NPC companions.
You CAN choose to play as one of the origin characters. Probably more characters will be coming.
You CAN choose to play either custom characters or Origin pre-made characters with friends, or for example 2 custom characters and 2 pre-made characters, etc.
You can do literally whatever you want. I don't understand how having all these options is a problem?

I think the issue is simply that some people have a different opinion to you and have valid concerns over the implementation of the custom character experience? Every previous iteration of BG or other games such as IWD, NWN, were always about playing a custom character so nothing has really been reversed at all. Origins companions in this case are an import from DOS; in an ideal world I personally feel BG3 should have nothing to do with DOS at all, other than being made by the developer of DOS and being a party based CRPG.

If you look at the advertising for the game, it's all about the Origins companions so in a sense it comes across as a game like The Witcher or Mass Effect. I always felt D&D CRPGS were about roleplaying your own creation not taking control of someone else's. Purely from ignorance, I cannot think of a single game that successfully managed to integrate both an Origins system and a custom character one...I'm more than happy to be corrected on this because, as I said, I am saying this from my own relatively limited experience of playing similar games to BG.
Posted By: Sabra Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 18/05/21 11:23 AM
I like the origin system, for what it's worth (not much, I know...). I'll definitely be doing custom character playthroughs (probably multiple) but I also intend to play every origin character at some point. I think our custom characters will shape up to have more identity and impact on the story in time. It's already hinted at in the dream sequences and with the choices you make in regards to Dream Daisy. The first part of the game is really just setting the tone and introducing the various characters. The story is just picking up. It's difficult to see because we have barely 1/3 of the story so far, but I do have faith that Larian is working to provide the best experience that they can. The custom characters haven't had much story time for players to flesh them out, and I doubt people want for the custom characters to be handed a fleshed out story right away? The origin characters are able to have complex stories at this point because they don't require the players to design them through gameplay interaction. Basically, we don't have the full story yet.

I agree with Alexandrite, Blackheifer, and Evilvik on this. I'm looking forward to playing the origin characters. Is it really a waste of resources for the game if there are people that want to and will engage with and enjoy the content? Players who don't want to play that way aren't required to engage with them at all. Time will tell if they end up missing out on a majority of the story. I'm hopeful that Larian has thought about and will address this, as they intend for multiplayer (and thus parties without origin characters) to be a big part of the experience. I disagree that the world and characters are bland and flat. I don't have as many hours in the game as some people here, but I've had a great time! I also like a good story, and have really enjoyed what I've seen of the companions' stories so far. I understand that not everything is perfect, but it's also a work in progress. And it is getting better. I've seen that from videos on Youtube of early gameplay and my own playthroughs this latest patch.

Edit: Before people come for me! I do want to say that I recognize the issue people are raising about this being a DnD game, where character customization is one of the foundational aspects of the game. Sometimes I do wonder if having so many origin characters is too ambitious. I'm just personally enjoying these aspects and generally have a positive outlook on it. I'm not trying to dismiss anyone's criticisms (I think many of the concerns have validity even if I disagree with some of them) but I've been following this thread for a while and want to provide a different perspective.
Posted By: Alexandrite Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 18/05/21 11:29 AM
Originally Posted by Tuco
I'd try to explain it again but I don't see the point when you are purposefully ignoring any post that explains the issue (in fact, it's so blatant I'm suspecting I may LITERALLY be in your ignore list and you won't address this reply either) and then following with another "I don't see the problem".

Whoa, whoa, whoa. First of all, no you're not on my ignore list. I simply disagree, that's all.


Originally Posted by Tuco
You seem to think that "more options are always great" as if for some form of magic they came as a net bonus, with no compromises, when reality is very different.
I don't care if I can just "ignore Origins and play a custom character", because that doesn't address the issue. I care for everything the game had to give up to even allow these Origin characters to exist.

I don't think the game has had to give anything up? We haven't even seen the whole game yet, the whole story. I just happen to be enjoying the story and game as it is now, without a wish to re-write it from the ground up. Look, all of us appear to just be wasting time snapping at each other while waiting for Larian to release their long-awaited community update.


Originally Posted by Tuco
Let's take DOS 2 as an example: I would have gladly welcomed a game where companions interacted WAY more with each other (rather than ignoring their mutual existence and talking just to the Main Character) over one that blew most of its extra budget and manpower into writing/voicing these same few companions from multiple perspectives (read: playable or not).

If you're speaking specifically to me, I have mentioned several times I've never played the Divinity series. The comparison is lost on me I'm afraid.
Aaaand yet again Pathfinder: Path of the righteous does one more thing right....No frigging <<origins>> , just LOTS of detailed and interesting companions that interacts with your created character ...which by the way has TONS of classes and sub-classes to choose from. Things are trucking along at a good pace, recommend checking the latest PotR built. Game is out this summer.
Meanwhile Larian...WTF?! Probably still recording Origins cinematics. Snails pace in gameplay improvements.
Posted By: kanisatha Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 18/05/21 12:57 PM
Originally Posted by Nyloth
Originally Posted by kanisatha
I'm not talking about the companions or the party. I would never play with custom companions when NPC companions are available. I'm talking about my PC. My custom PC in my non-custom party, where my custom PC is going to feel completely pointless and irrelevant compared with my party companions.

But also, on a secondary related note, I profoundly disagree that we currently have a varied cast of well written companions. There is no variation at all in good versus evil. As someone who would want only a strictly "good" aligned party, I have no choices at all (No, Wyll and Gale are not good-aligned; at best they're neutral). And worse, all the current crop of companions are utterly distasteful and annoying, and I would not care to go adventuring with them as my companions. I would want a full party of all good-aligned companions who are also"nice and friendly and a pleasure to hang out with. But I am also not going to be willing to accept empty-suit custom companions. So then there is no way (at least at present) for me to play the game.

Yes, maybe because all our companions are now evil or neutral? Larian has already been told there are no good companions in EA, so yes Wyll and Gale are not good. They are neutral. Wait when Larian add good companions. If you specifically don't like evil characters, it doesn't mean that they are poorly written or not interesting. I'm happy there are no good characters in my party, I'm tired of them, in every game you have good characters and a maximum neutral ones. But the evil? Almost never. We also can't fully judge how well/bad they are written, because we don't know anything about them at all, except for their partial worldview.

So yes, I think we have most interesting companions. Because you will hardly find many games with evil or selfish companions, which will also be equally with the good ones. This is rare.
Yes, supposedly we will be getting good-aligned companions later on. But the discussion was about the current companions being great and so I am disagreeing with that. I am of course willing to wait and see on the future companions, though given that I am yet to find a single Larian created NPC that I liked I highly doubt I will see anything I like from those additional companions.

As for the companions being well written, yes there is a subjective element to it, but it is also objective. And these companions are not well written. They are largely edgelord cliches.
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Alexandrite
I still don't quite understand what the issue is, here.
And before anyone throws smelly boots and rotten eggs at me and calls me a "Larian fangirl", I'm not - this is the first of their games I've ever played... I just happen to love this particular game the way it is shaping up, is all. I've never played the original BG games (well, BG1 a little, and this year not 20 years ago) and I've never played the Divinity series.

Originally Posted by Niara
That is what D:OS2 ended up being like... and this game design is going exactly the same way, despite promises from Larian to the contrary.

I didn't know that. But in THIS game, it's reversed, and we are starting off being encouraged to play our own player-created character. The other Origin characters aren't playable yet. Where is the issue?

You CAN play your own custom character with or without the NPC companions.
You CAN choose to play as one of the origin characters. Probably more characters will be coming.
You CAN choose to play either custom characters or Origin pre-made characters with friends, or for example 2 custom characters and 2 pre-made characters, etc.
You can do literally whatever you want. I don't understand how having all these options is a problem?
I'd try to explain it again but I don't see the point when you are purposefully ignoring any post that explains the issue (in fact, it's so blatant I'm suspecting I may LITERALLY be in your ignore list and you won't address this reply either) and then following with another "I don't see the problem".


You seem to think that "more options are always great" as if for some form of magic they came as a net bonus, with no compromises, when reality is very different.
I don't care if I can just "ignore Origins and play a custom character", because that doesn't address the issue. I care for everything the game had to give up to even allow these Origin characters to exist.

Let's take DOS 2 as an example: I would have gladly welcomed a game where companions interacted WAY more with each other (rather than ignoring their mutual existence and talking just to the Main Character) over one that blew most of its extra budget and manpower into writing/voicing these same few companions from multiple perspectives (read: playable or not).

...and yet, the companions do interact with each other, here for sure. It's been a while since I played DOS2, so I don't recall, one way or the other. If it's "but they're limited", are you looking to get their whole story laid out in the first act? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. I have already talked on the "what they gave up to make the Origin characters voiced" point. They didn't give up anything that isn't "given up" in any other game with voiced companions. If it's giving up on the PC being voiced, I doubt that it's got a lot to do with voiced NPCs. After all, the PC in BG 1 and 2 was a silent protagonist, barring some selection blurbs. Ironically, Hawke being voiced in DA 2 was one of the things that lit the old BSN forums on fire, because "their tone doesn't fit what I wanted it to be". So that's a lose/lose proposition.

If they spend too much time defining Tav, then we run into the issue of all the possible variations, even just in EA, let alone what may be possible on release. Parallel to that issue will be those that expect to be able to define that particular themselves, instead of "playing Larian's Character". I've watched this debate for decades. I've seen every iteration of the argument, and while I was initially all about silent protagonists, I've come to the realization that both have their merits, and neither is going to be perfect. Even with a silent protagonist, I've found that dialog options that I may have wanted to take weren't available. For a voiced protagonist, where was the choice to tell TIM to take a long walk off a short pier after the first mission in ME 2? Where was the option to not work for Cerebus at all? Pitfalls abound, because no matter how well a game is received, and we'd be hard pressed to claim that ME 2 wasn't a good game, and that it wasn't well received, since most people seem to believe it was the best game in the series, it's going to have things missing that players wanted, and things included that they didn't.

But I digress. The budget to make the comps voiced doesn't necessarily affect whether or not the main/custom character gets voice lines, or a lot of exposition about who they are/were before the story events. In the vast majority of these games, where the character isn't totally defined, such as the Witcher series, the character is shaped by the player's choices, from what's available, voiced or otherwise. Some of a PC's backstory doesn't even become apparent until later in the game, from the player's perspective, such as being a Bhaalspawn. Other characters involved may have known, but we didn't know until later in the game. So I don't know what's in store for Tav, or which ever of the Origin characters someone may choose to play as. I don't have access to story boards, or scripts, or even a vague outline of Act II or Act III.

The only real issue I've had so far is not being a fan of the "only some of the NPCs will carry on after Act I" thing. I'd much rather they continue on in the story, even if it's a "split the party, and send some this way, and some that way" thing, or an "All hands on deck" situation to get to where ever it is we're going from where we are now.
Posted By: Rhobar121 Re: Does anyone like the Origin system? - 18/05/21 06:31 PM
Originally Posted by robertthebard
Originally Posted by Tuco
Originally Posted by Alexandrite
I still don't quite understand what the issue is, here.
And before anyone throws smelly boots and rotten eggs at me and calls me a "Larian fangirl", I'm not - this is the first of their games I've ever played... I just happen to love this particular game the way it is shaping up, is all. I've never played the original BG games (well, BG1 a little, and this year not 20 years ago) and I've never played the Divinity series.

Originally Posted by Niara
That is what D:OS2 ended up being like... and this game design is going exactly the same way, despite promises from Larian to the contrary.

I didn't know that. But in THIS game, it's reversed, and we are starting off being encouraged to play our own player-created character. The other Origin characters aren't playable yet. Where is the issue?

You CAN play your own custom character with or without the NPC companions.
You CAN choose to play as one of the origin characters. Probably more characters will be coming.
You CAN choose to play either custom characters or Origin pre-made characters with friends, or for example 2 custom characters and 2 pre-made characters, etc.
You can do literally whatever you want. I don't understand how having all these options is a problem?
I'd try to explain it again but I don't see the point when you are purposefully ignoring any post that explains the issue (in fact, it's so blatant I'm suspecting I may LITERALLY be in your ignore list and you won't address this reply either) and then following with another "I don't see the problem".


You seem to think that "more options are always great" as if for some form of magic they came as a net bonus, with no compromises, when reality is very different.
I don't care if I can just "ignore Origins and play a custom character", because that doesn't address the issue. I care for everything the game had to give up to even allow these Origin characters to exist.

Let's take DOS 2 as an example: I would have gladly welcomed a game where companions interacted WAY more with each other (rather than ignoring their mutual existence and talking just to the Main Character) over one that blew most of its extra budget and manpower into writing/voicing these same few companions from multiple perspectives (read: playable or not).

...and yet, the companions do interact with each other, here for sure. It's been a while since I played DOS2, so I don't recall, one way or the other. If it's "but they're limited", are you looking to get their whole story laid out in the first act? That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. I have already talked on the "what they gave up to make the Origin characters voiced" point. They didn't give up anything that isn't "given up" in any other game with voiced companions. If it's giving up on the PC being voiced, I doubt that it's got a lot to do with voiced NPCs. After all, the PC in BG 1 and 2 was a silent protagonist, barring some selection blurbs. Ironically, Hawke being voiced in DA 2 was one of the things that lit the old BSN forums on fire, because "their tone doesn't fit what I wanted it to be". So that's a lose/lose proposition.

If they spend too much time defining Tav, then we run into the issue of all the possible variations, even just in EA, let alone what may be possible on release. Parallel to that issue will be those that expect to be able to define that particular themselves, instead of "playing Larian's Character". I've watched this debate for decades. I've seen every iteration of the argument, and while I was initially all about silent protagonists, I've come to the realization that both have their merits, and neither is going to be perfect. Even with a silent protagonist, I've found that dialog options that I may have wanted to take weren't available. For a voiced protagonist, where was the choice to tell TIM to take a long walk off a short pier after the first mission in ME 2? Where was the option to not work for Cerebus at all? Pitfalls abound, because no matter how well a game is received, and we'd be hard pressed to claim that ME 2 wasn't a good game, and that it wasn't well received, since most people seem to believe it was the best game in the series, it's going to have things missing that players wanted, and things included that they didn't.

But I digress. The budget to make the comps voiced doesn't necessarily affect whether or not the main/custom character gets voice lines, or a lot of exposition about who they are/were before the story events. In the vast majority of these games, where the character isn't totally defined, such as the Witcher series, the character is shaped by the player's choices, from what's available, voiced or otherwise. Some of a PC's backstory doesn't even become apparent until later in the game, from the player's perspective, such as being a Bhaalspawn. Other characters involved may have known, but we didn't know until later in the game. So I don't know what's in store for Tav, or which ever of the Origin characters someone may choose to play as. I don't have access to story boards, or scripts, or even a vague outline of Act II or Act III.

The only real issue I've had so far is not being a fan of the "only some of the NPCs will carry on after Act I" thing. I'd much rather they continue on in the story, even if it's a "split the party, and send some this way, and some that way" thing, or an "All hands on deck" situation to get to where ever it is we're going from where we are now.

Ultimately, we don't know if the team will be standing after the first act is completed. The last time they touched on this topic, it was not yet fully settled.
I suspect that if people complained enough, they changed it, especially since there is a good chance that some followers will just kill each other or that the player will be able to betray them (I expect the option that, for example, we will be able to give Astarion to Cazador).
In fact, changing it shouldn't be a big problem to Larian
© Larian Studios forums