Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Suggestion: No more non-party approval/disapproval, please

I'm just gonna be real with you. I want to romance Astarion but I also want to be a good and helpful person. With the way it works now, I can't do this. I'm used to being able to keep a companion in camp and gain their approval through camp conversations while I do as I please while they're not around to disapprove. If there is a canon reason why they can magically know of my actions despite being back at camp, I will (begrudgingly) relent, but I'd really like it if I could just...keep Astarion at camp so I can be a goody-two shoes and then suck up to him at camp and romance him. Is this cheating? Maybe. But it worked in Dragon Age.

The only explanation I can think of is the tadpole... maybe they all 'feel' what we are doing... but I agree with you, it shouldn't happen.

"Nanomachines, son!"

The tadpole, campfire conversations, rumors heard while doing things outside the camp. . .From what I have read here on the forums, after Act 1 we are stuck with whatever party we take with us to Moonrise Towers. There are another half dozen companions in the game, such as those which we haven't been able to place in our party yet like the Teifling and the Druid (restricted until Act 2), as well as others who have yet to be introduced in Acts beyond that such as Minsc and the werewolf.

My guess is that this is specifically to get rid of origin characters in Act 1 who are available as companions and similarly other acts will probably introduce and shed additional characters as well. which will ensure the opportunity for fresh content on successive playthroughs for those with the time and interest to tackle this more than once.

I don't know, this doesn't seem badly done to me and there may be more to it than we know now. I am actually not too worried about this particular aspect to be honest and rather like the idea of NPCs who aren't fawning sycophants. If anything, I would actually prefer NPCs have more assertive personalities.

Here is a variant of canonical reason.
You talk at camp and tell each other what heppend today. This part is just not shown. Like a lot af other basic things people do during the day. Some minor choses you could skip in your retelling. But you definitely will tell about major choses, that affect the world and party.

IMHO a lot of the time their disposition changes for the wrong reason. It should change based on the course of actions that I chose, insted of whether I succeeded or failed.

I initially was of the same opinion, but since then it's changed. It makes sense to me that the group would know what's happened during the day, as your choices would likely affect other people/areas and might be discussed off-screen by the people you took with you (and possibly through the tadpole, as well).

It might be annoying to see people not present disapprove, but it sort of feels cheap to me now to play Dragon Age and purposefully leave one companion behind all the time because I know they'd absolutely hate me if they saw what I was doing, and then try to win them over just by saying what they want me to say in person (or buying them gifts lmao). Makes it feel like they have more agency in BG3, in a sense. And yeah, it's also tricky when you consider the party being locked after Act 1; you wouldn't really be able to leave someone behind all the time to shape their opinion of you.

What I think should be changed, however, is when other companions approve/disapprove of private conversations in camp. If Shadowheart decides to open up to me in private and ex. I tell her that I agree with something she's saying, I don't see how Lae'zel could know about it and disapprove, unless again it's due to the tadpole. But I feel like that should be addressed at some point in the game, if that's the reason. Maybe companions getting frustrated with each other due to lack of privacy?

I agree that it's a bit annoying when I try something and get disapproval for failing a roll, though. Like with trying to crush the tadpole.

I'm also fairly certain that, in Astarion's case, approval doesn't matter to trigger his romance scene? It might matter later, but for now, it seems he's down no matter what he thinks of you, so long as you let him proposition you and don't take initiative. For all the others approval seems to matter, though.

I haven't made it very far into BG3 yet, but how do the companions normally treat and discuss things amongst themselves? Would they discuss current events or talk about things that occurred in their day with each other? Approval and disproval can certainly be an annoying mechanic, but it sounds like it's done more realistically here than it was in DAO.

I think it's made pretty clear that the party interacts and picks up on what you talk with others about.
Shadowhearts "I couldn't help listening, well I could" is a good example.

So you want to romance someone, bud dont want to do anything he like ... i can sence your problem ... but im not sure its in system. :-/

You will have to find some middle road ... small little cruelities here, and there, just to make him laugh ... but in the big questions, be good.

It will be shame to cancel this small challenges just to allow people to bang anyone they want no matter anything. :-/
(Or ... pray for moders, or developers to add presents ... that was funny way from Dragon Age to keep everyone love you, even if you mock them, tease them, and do litteraly everything they hate. :D)

Oh right, I totally forgot about that! Now that I think about it, there are also other examples of them listening in on each other, and all in all it's not strange that they would (though it'd make at least half of them giant hypocrites, since they seem to value privacy so much, but then again most of them aren't exactly moral people anyway). Since it's addressed, I guess it's okay to keep imo, it just surprised me that ex. someone as guarded as Shadowheart would open up to you if you persuade her and then not be careful to keep it from the others. But I guess PC = whole group when it comes to what people reveal to you and not. Everyone seem to know about Gale's condition after he tells you in private as well.



It's never actually discussed on-screen between companions, but due to them approving/disapproving whether they were present or not, it's kind of assumed that they do.

The approval/disapproval mechanic should be only available within the current party. If you leave a companion in camp, it doesn't make much sense they should know what you've been doing all day. Some could argue the others told them. But it doesn't work in case you go do some stuff solo.

It would be rather interesting to have a conversation with them afterwards and tell them what you want them to know about your actions and leave some pieces secret.

It would certainly add more dialogues and make things harder for the writers, but it would make the companion interactions more coherent and less forced into your story arc.

Word will get around no matter what you do, also you are all connected with the tadpole. It makes perfect sense that the ones left at camp would know what you have been doing. I remember being annoyed with this in DA:I where there should have been a delayed approval change, here knowing immediately makes sense because they are probably spying on you with the tadpole. It seems rather manipulative and not the actions of a "good" person at all to act one way away from the person you wish to romance and then another way in their presence.

It would be nice if there was some sort of dialogue where you could explain your actions with the disapproving companion who was left behind and possibly convince them of your reasoning but I don't see this happening.

The tadpole is not a good argument. Because it could be deceiving the characters into seeing images which haven't actually happened, hence the dreams. So I am not sure the characters would trust what information is transmitted to them this way.

Which could also be happening to us each time we use it to pry into a mind as well. I think this is supposed to be truth but what you are saying could be interesting.

I don't see why all the other party members would cover for you. Shadowheart, sure, because that's her thing. But Lae'zel? Astarion?

I think DAI had a good balance.

For big events (e.g., side with tieflings vs goblins, make a deal with the hag, etc), obviously the party members in camp will find out and thus should approve/disapprove.
But for ~unimportant conversation options, only party members with you should (dis)approve.

Nightly debriefs of what happened during the day would obviously only be summaries. Party members left at camp would learn about the bigger events but not every single action/dialogue option chosen over the course of a full adventuring day.

I don't like an approval/disapproval system with folks I need for a party. I don't have a choice unless I want to go it alone. I am fine with approval and disapproval if it doesn't close any doors. Fine, you hate me, but we need to get this done anyway. Fine you don't like I petted that kitten, but I'm still damn sexy, so... People can disagree and still get along, and I really don't want to play the game my NPC's are going to approve of, especially when it seems there is no pleasing some of them, or the fact that I didn't throw burning babies at my enemies means I am not up to snuff. WIth a game as long as this one is going to be I also don't like thinking I wouldn't get to know my companions unless I played the game a bunch of times in ways I don't like playing.

As others have stated, I assume all companions talk around the campfire at night. Also, I have played dozens of campaigns (324 hrs played) and most followed one of the good paths and I can always count on Astarian hitting on me so they are not mutually exclusive.

Gale is always hitting on me too. Even playing evil, I have only romanced Shadowheart and Lae'zel by

I am also in the camp of "your party probably talks to one another off-screen". In other games I always thought it was incredibly artificial that you could, say, leave your good hearted heroic companion at camp, walk off and murder a woman in front of her child, then go talk to him again and absolutely nothing will have changed.

Like, no. Realistically people talk. Your companions aren't taking a vow of silence every time you go off to do something. And it feels like a cheat in the system that you can act counter to one of your companion's alignments by just leaving them at home when you go out and rob a family blind because you need some extra gold for a new pair of magic boots.

As far as your specific problem? Astarion would find your character incredibly boring. A stick in the mud who doesn't let him have any fun. Someone who sees the world in a completely alien way to him that he can't understand or really relate to. How would you romance someone who you have nothing in common with and who finds you dreadfully bad company?

Your choices aren't just things your character does. They also inform the game what kind of person your character is, which informs your companions what kind of person they've been dealing with all this time.

Basically, if you want to romance a guy like Astarion you're gonna have to get your hands bloody and act in a way that Astarion finds interesting and delightful. Keeping him at camp to try and hide who you are from him wouldn't work out.

So... Just be yourself. He has to love you for who you are on the inside.

Timeless advice! LoL