Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Don't confuse special snowflake with intreasting

If everyone is special, no one is. The companions I have met so far already make me yearn for someone normal.

This is exactly what I want. Companions who don't really have a backstory, but are there to help ground the world a bit. Especially a barbarian who just likes to punch things. I will happily take that.

I understand what you're talking about regarding the companions, and I certainly feel the total lack of "good alignment" NPCs (I know it's early access and they have more companions planned). However, I think the EA companions fit the whole "escape from an Illithid dungeon" scenario, but that scenario seems quite ridiculous for level 1 characters.

The game has essentially recreated the exact same scenario that opened BG2, the Irenicus dungeon escape, except it's designed for level 1 characters(the opening of BG2 was designed for about level 7 to 10), but that scenario makes no sense for level 1, and the same feeling of power disconnect exists between the characters and their backstories (with the exception for Shadowheart and *possibly* Wyll- I haven't learned too much about him yet).

Lae'zel- She is a Githyanki which are generally involved in planar travel campaigns , though it's certainly possible to have a low level adventuring Githyanki character, it seems like she has experience fighting Illithid which are level 10ish(I'm not 100% clear on whether she's fought Illithid before, but the game makes it seems like she's a veteran warrior of the Githyanki military).

Astarion- generally speaking, a vampire is high level threat, even a vampire spawn should be more powerful than a level 1 character. Again, it's certainly possible for a sufficient explanation, but it's kind of defying general D&D logic to make a level 1 character a vampire or even a vampire spawn.

Gale- A level 2 wizard hardly seems powerful or noteworthy enough to be the center of a magical realm-destroying catastrophe plot. Many villages in the realms have wizards that are equally or slightly more powerful than he is, and basically every major city has a guild of wizards that are leagues above level 2.

All of these characters and their backgrounds would have made perfect sense as companions in Irenicus' dungeon when the game begins at level 7 -10, but there is a strong disconnect with their stories for first level characters. Shadowheart's story is the one that fits most cleanly with a level 1 character, though it could fit a mid level character just as well. She seems like a believable acolyte (even though she is hiding something).

BG1 and NWN2 both had openings that seemed much more appropriate for level 1 characters: Your childhood home was attacked, and you were given a concrete reason to adventure in search of answers but are just a small player in large world. BG3's is so much more in line with BG2: You're captured by a powerful evil force who is trying to take your life, but manage to escape only to find yourself in a distant part of the world you are utterly unfamiliar with and have a strict time limit to prevent total catastrophe.

If anyone said humour has no place in a Baldur's Gate game, I question whether they have actually played any. The humour was one of the best and most memorable aspects of the games:

BG 1:
Minsc and Boo
Melicamp the chicken
Noober
The old mountaintop prophet who talks about your aura

BG 2
Minsc again
Jan Jansen
Garricks' courtship
Party banter
Edwin

There is tons more in both games.

I like that the companions have their own hook and storyline. Sorry you want "generic grunt #2". In D&D adventurers are a rare lot and few people even have classes, so them having a story isnt an issue. Maybe they can have let you design your own mute henchmen like in the Pillars of Eternity games?

I swear D&D nerds are allergic to fun.

There is humor and there is humor... and the brand of Larian's wacky, nordic insanity is not as fitting to the setting, as Bioware's more toned down goofiness was.

SPOILERS


One extreme is as distasteful as the other. It isn't that being exceptional is inherently problematic, it is that exceptional exists in relation to a norm, and both have to be representing for either to have any significant impact or meaning. Having a survivor of a goblin sacked town bent on revenge would make an understandable and relatable companion without stretching anything. Personal quests could involve gathering enough coin/resources/territory to establish a militia/memorial/hire-foreign-mercenaries, or simply making peace with what happened and moving on (like after the upteenth time the player has committed their own private genocide and they are forced to reckon with what they have become). Interesting is a matter of depth, not breadth. So much happens even in the little covered in the early release there are dozens of motivations to be found. When you meet the dying Strong Soul and the two apprentices, one could choose to accompany you, their personal struggle being between their confidence and trust in the player and their belief in the Absolute. Or maybe both could, and then they are at not only at odds internally but also with one another which could prove very interesting. At the gates of the Druid enclave, one of the three individuals you save (assuming you saved them all, I did) may elect to join you as a debt of honor, knowing they could never have survived without your intercession and their personal quests could involve tempering their sense of duty and obligation with graciousness and generosity. NPCs can be compelling and sympathetic without being unicorns, in fact, many here (and in other threads) seem to agree that unicorns aren't really all that interesting when they are everywhere.

The tadpole seems the least of their troubles for sure.

Uh no I did infact not skip her story. I was giving short descriptions showing that theyre not infact uninteresting boring nobodies. I could write entire paragraphs about each character but nobody has time for that....

@warbaby2:
You say that the npc's backstories dident play a role yet at the same time say that in bg3 it will play a role? How can you tell? The game is still in EA. Aside from 1 of the npc's going nuclear and killing alot of people their backgrounds in no way shape or form will be effecting the main story line as far as we can tell so far. One is a vampire but hes no where near as powerfull as a normal spawn is. Seems more like flavour then an big game breaking side effect.

The game isent finished yet but other then fleshing out the character a bit I dont really see it influencing gameplay either tbh. Where as the npc's in bg1 had unique special abilities. Nothing game breaking but enough to give them something special like Minsc's rage or Branwen spectral hammers.

What im trying to say is, it marks them as special in the setting. Maybe not so much to the player. Other then having quirky backgrounds thr npcs in bg3 dont really stand out either...

This^ Thanks for enunciating what I've been feeling during my playthroughs.

+2

This really just goes back to the companions all being over stylized. They could honestly have pretty similar backgrounds and it wouldn’t be a big deal if it wasn’t just so blatant.

Boone from New Vegas was a great companion. He was a sniper, he had a little hat that alluded to this. His motivation was to kill legionnaires who killed his wife. None of this was a secret. But if he was in this game he’d be wearing a shirt that said ‘#1 Sniper,” be totally decked out in kit instead of a clothes and yell “YOU MADE ME KILL MY WIFE” when entering battle.

The whole time you’re just like *eye roll* I get it Gayle there’s a bomb in you. Like by the time these characters actually talk about their backstory it’s like Rick and Beth finding King Tommy “yeah way ahead of the reveal here”

Yeah, this is probably the main issue I have with the companions. None of them come off as level 1 characters. However, they could have explained that away by using the Mind Flayer abduction as an excuse as to why our characters don't possess their full abilities. Basically, they are all in a recovery process from having a tadpole inserted into their brains. Pretty cliche stuff, but there is no freaking way these characters are all level 1 nobodies.

Personally, I would just rather have all these characters more spread apart throughout the game. I find it kind of stupid that you find them all in the very first area of the game. But I guess it has something to do with Larian's Origin Character approach. Everyone has to be available right from the start.

Lv 1 doesn't necessarily mean "clueless nobody who just started adventuring".

DnD allows you to create a character with an already rich backstory, full of a prior life, and that doesn't have to translate into "high level".

For the purpose of "ludonarrative cohesion", it is easily reconciled: Your character simply decides to employ abilities of increasing power just as the threats increase that require them (and as their "XP", as a representation of that, increases as well).

I'm going to quote you every time some dnd guy whines about it. However, I do think that the reason people complain about it is because the story is just not good enough for them to suspend their disbelief. This means the solution shouldn't be to create a 7 level characters but to improve the lacking elements of the story.

About snowflakes - the issue here is once again with Larian's insistence on origin characters that are also potential companions. This creates so many narrative problems that Larian doesn't seem interested in solving

Correct me if I am wrong. But, you are saying that my wizard posses the ability to cast fireball and time stop, they just choose not to because the threat is not high enough? why would they risk their friends, using some minor spells when they fight 30 goblins, when they can end it fast with a single spell?

I agree that the writing behind the companions is sub par at best and many people have brought up the incredible amount of plot armor and suspension of disbelief that is required for any of them to get their foot in the door. I have seen people also make the claim that older BG games where whacky humorous because humorous things can happen and this makes no sense to me. I'm sure you've seen a picture of soldiers laughing or playing a game during an extremely graphic war(such as WW1/WW2) but you would never propose that these times where humorous or whacky. Please consider the actual tone of BG1/2 and respect that despite this the developers had the clarity to still allow space for humor and entertainment.

That being said all the problems with the companions stems from the "origin character" gimmick that has made a return from DivOS2 and I personally believe was an extremely thoughtless decision on Larians part. Of course all the characters will feel like Mary sue snowflakes while also feeling underdeveloped because they need to be main characters while also allowing for you to take control of them and affect their personality according to your desires. This is ineffective at best and schizophrenic at worst and something I believe they genuinely need to rethink while there is time. If they don't then for me the immediate choice will be to mod these characters out of the game.


Level 1 means you are extremely week, completely inexperienced and barely skilled. DnD allows you to create a rich backstory yes but why do you ignore the fact that there is control for this and a GM will veto backstories that break cohesion by allowing you to write in a power fantasy? The last part is comical and is the definition of ludonarrative dissonance as well as being poor reasoning and unrealistic even in a high fantasy setting.

I actually like these companions better than BG1 & 2 except for Minsc and Boo. Also contrary to OP, I find them all interesting.

Well for instance, experienced Wizards (and other powerful adventurers) know that the moment they make things too easily resolved, everyone will come to rely on them alone, instead of growing more resourceful themselves ...;)
But the truth is: as long as the ability to cast fireball is not mentioned in-dialogue, there's no reason to point out that a character should be able to do that if they are that experienced already. There's no need to marry "power level" in game terms with "backstory" in a way that forbids Lv 1 chars from having interesting backgrounds, to have "lived a little" already before getting into this adventuring business.
I'm glad to not be adventuring with entirely clueless teenagers in every RPG. Take games like Dragon Age or Mass Effect: Your companions start as "low" as you do in game mechanical terms, but they had all sorts of lives before meeting you, and lived through some serious shit. The same method can be easily applied to DnD-based games.

What game was that, not recognizing it from your summery.

You're extremely weak in *game terms*. Doesn't mean completely inexperienced or barely skilled as a character in the narrative sense.
"Rich backstory" does nowhere have to mean "power fantasy", just that you don't have to be fresh from the dirt farm knowing nothing except dirt farming. That's what I find needlessly constraining. If your background is "Soldier" it's logical that you were in the military, you have killed a few people maybe, did they not give you XP, should you not be higher level then? If you approach backstory + character power in game terms like that and try to absolutely synchronize the two, you can only ever play teenage dirt farmers, period. And I'd really find that unfortunate.