Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback The narrator

In BG2 we didn't get told what things were, we get shown. We don't get told "This demon does this". We SEE it. And if anything is explained THEY say it. We also get into the reasons and how things are and it's left to the player to determine if events are "right" or "Wrong" (or neither because it's not really that simple).

In BG3 we have a voice explaining everything instead. Like "Gnoll is like this and that". As it generalizes about how they're just evil and bloodthirsty instead of going into any meangful depth. As a result it comes across a more "spoonfed" when things are explained with a voice. Talking about the tadpole makes sense because it's in your head. But we, as the player, whould be making our own observations instead of being told IMO.

X DOES Y which results in Z is fine. Action and reaction. How people feel.

But X generalizing (evil with no reasons given. etc) is just painting things black and white. If for example a gnoll just chest bursted out of a hyena then maybe go into things like "Is it afraid and unfamiler of its surroundings". If we have a mind reading tadpole then it should also be able to determine (or otherwise lie about) if a gnoll is a new life (hyena dead). As I suspect. But if that happens it should be clear that it's the tadpole saying it. NOT the narrator.

The problem with the narrator is that it can force a player to what they think. How they feel is one thing. But once it comes to observation a situation that should be more down to the player then the narrator. The role of a narrator is to influence the stage. State the situation. Let it speak for itself. Not to tell the player what they think.

It's also harder to be a good narrator then let events speak for themselves. BG2 was impactful because it shows what it does. I didn't need an explanation out of nowhere. Neverwinter Nights 1 with the kobolds also showed things. The situation made clear by the kobolds themselves (which are more then typical evil bad guys). So when BG3 keeps explaining everything it's like I'm being told what to think and feel instead of making my own call. And then remind myself that it still is, but when players are told they can fall into a mindset of what they're told instead of thinking for themselves.

"Power courses through your veins. Authoratory." Thing with that line is that its used over and over. WHAT authoratory? WHY is the player in control of the current situation? Is the tadpole forcing its way into someones mind to read it or does the person allow it subconsciously? These are events the narrator could go into depth about. One example would be if someone (or something) is afraid then it's a lot easier to get inside their head. While someone more calm/calculated would be more resistent. Which the narrator could mention/elaborate on.

How do you think the narrator could be improved?

In BG2 we didn't get told what things were, we get shown. We don't get told "This demon does this". We SEE it. And if anything is explained THEY say it. We also get into the reasons and how things are and it's left to the player to determine if events are "right" or "Wrong" (or neither because it's not really that simple).

In BG3 we have a voice explaining everything instead. Like "Gnoll is like this and that". As it generalizes about how they're just evil and bloodthirsty instead of going into any meangful depth. As a result it comes across a more "spoonfed" when things are explained with a voice. Talking about the tadpole makes sense because it's in your head. But we, as the player, whould be making our own observations instead of being told IMO.

X DOES Y which results in Z is fine. Action and reaction. How people feel.

But X generalizing (evil with no reasons given. etc) is just painting things black and white. If for example a gnoll just chest bursted out of a hyena then maybe go into things like "Is it afraid and unfamiler of its surroundings". If we have a mind reading tadpole then it should also be able to determine (or otherwise lie about) if a gnoll is a new life (hyena dead). As I suspect. But if that happens it should be clear that it's the tadpole saying it. NOT the narrator.

The problem with the narrator is that it can force a player to what they think. How they feel is one thing. But once it comes to observation a situation that should be more down to the player then the narrator. The role of a narrator is to influence the stage. State the situation. Let it speak for itself. Not to tell the player what they think.

It's also harder to be a good narrator then let events speak for themselves. BG2 was impactful because it shows what it does. I didn't need an explanation out of nowhere. Neverwinter Nights 1 with the kobolds also showed things. The situation made clear by the kobolds themselves (which are more then typical evil bad guys). So when BG3 keeps explaining everything it's like I'm being told what to think and feel instead of making my own call. And then remind myself that it still is, but when players are told they can fall into a mindset of what they're told instead of thinking for themselves.

"Power courses through your veins. Authoratory." Thing with that line is that its used over and over. WHAT authoratory? WHY is the player in control of the current situation? Is the tadpole forcing its way into someones mind to read it or does the person allow it subconsciously? These are events the narrator could go into depth about. One example would be if someone (or something) is afraid then it's a lot easier to get inside their head. While someone more calm/calculated would be more resistent. Which the narrator could mention/elaborate on.

I made the same thread in general to get other peoples feedback about it (word for word with adding how they think they can improve the narrtor). See this link for that thread.

I could imagine there being an option for minimal narration (as you said, the tadpole narration and other internal things are pretty crucial). Personally I like the narration – it makes it feel more like a real DnD campaign, with a DM weaving a tale for you as you play – but I can understand not wanting that yourself.

Worth noting that I do *not* think the narration should tell you anything your character doesn't have good reason to already know. I mention this only in relation to your example – if the narration explained that it's easier to get inside the head of someone who's afraid, and harder if they're calm, that would be telling you something you don't necessarily have any reason to know. Obviously you could succeed on an Insight check or some such to figure it out, but in general I think it's important to make the distinction between narration telling you things your character knows/perceives that you might not (good) vs. explaining things neither you nor your character has good reason to yet understand (bad).

I think the narrator's problem is that his interpretation is not general, simple and clean, like what you said about authority, I interpreted it like this: "That person has a high level of authority in that situation", like for example , the leader of a guard. But it still doesn't make it clear.

I think the solution would be a change in the existing texts and a change in the time of creating new texts.

It was "Gnolls sees whole world as a meal" ... i just want to remind you that this sentence is told by Narator only if you sucess on your passive Intelligence (arcana i believe?) diceroll check ... so, there is no Narator telling you what Gnolls are ... actualy there is Narator telling you what your character remembered.

Also ... i believe (but could be wrong tho) that massacre all around the Gnolls should pretty much give you image of "how bloodthirsty" they actualy are.

I disagree ...
Those are questions that we (or our characters if you wish) are suppose to ask themselves ... they are not ment to be answered (at least not yet)

The gnoll bit is probably a bad example for what you're trying to say. Default gnolls in D&D aren't a society. They don't have a culture. It's not like the orc or goblin situation because they have societies and cultures.

Gnolls are semi-autonomous extensions of a particularly murderous demon lord. My personal theory is that Yeenoghu's original homeworld was consumed by the abyss and the gnolls encountered by default are basically Yeenoghu's distorted memories of his homeworld. WOTC has said that the gnolls in the Monster Manual should be re-typed as fiends instead of humanoids.

This doesn't stop a GM from creating a society of perfectly natural gnolls unconnected to a demon lord but the default gnolls as we see are basically killing machines, somewhat less self-aware than a holodeck character, and they're demons, meaning they are functionally part of the spread of the abyss.

As to the narrator... I'm always willing for an option to turn it off. But I like the narration and would like to keep it.

Never needed it myself, co i cannot confrim or deny it ... but many people around here was in the past talking about option to mute Narator in sound settings. O_o

I think the narration allows some really interesting things to happen and is integral to the manipulation aspect of Baldur's gate 3.

To give an example - when you are dealing with True Soul Edwin, after he dies you see the tadpole. The narrator describes your feelings for this obviously disgusting alien worm, and one of the feelings you end up having is "compassion"...and then a few seconds later the narration questions that feeling "Compassion?". Then you have to make saving throws against its ability to influence your mind.

There is also something called an "Unreliable Narrator" - that Larian is playing with when they explore these emotional manipulations. Personally I am a huge fan of this style, a good example would be the book - We have Always Lived in the Castle - by Shirley Jackson

Also the narration is - as has been mentioned - descriptive and NOT explanatory UNLESS you make an appropriate saving throw - Arcana, History, religion, Insight, Investigation - and then you get an extra tidbit of info. This is exactly how actual D&D works. The "do I know this information or recognize these creatures?" Questions are quite common and the DM will ask you to Roll X.

Frankly I love the system and think its quite well implemented.

As for actual exposition, most of that is restricted to the books you find. The visual narrative "show, don't tell" is very strong in bg3.

If you want an example of actual bad exposition, go check out Tides of Numenera - worst written game ever, just from a technical perspective the exposition is constant and pointless. Pure garbage.

Although I have no idea how all this fancy literary stuff translates into other languages. I don't want to assume it makes sense.

I hated the narrator on DOS2, not his performace, but the necessity of introducing all conversations and interactions. It became convoluted very fast.

In BG3 I thought I would be redundant since we have cinematics, but I think the application was well made and I actually enjoyed it.

This. Which is why they originally had everything in past tense (i assume). It is a story unfolding via your actions and the narrator’s account of the impacts of your actions (for the most part).

I like it.

When I see the player just going "Oh, it's about authoratory" then there's simply no context there. That line is clearly reused over and over and is being shoe horned to fit too many situaitons when it could be elaborating in the current situation. I don't want to hear a reused line. I want to hear "The tadpole wiggles nerviously as it asserts its will against the threat before you" for one situation. And "The tadpole boldly reads the mind of the ogre" for another situation. Gives us some idea as to how the tadpole itself is behaving/reacting at the current point in time. And it gives us more variation. This way it makes it more relatable to the player. So when you finally get to the point in the game you keep or lose it (it's probably heading that way. Or perhaps outside events cause you to lose it) then we can remember those times we had with it.

Just giving us answers later in the game doesn't do that. It's not about the end destination. It's about the journey. As it stands if I was given the option to toss the tadpole aside I would (and a few cheap dreams doesn't change my mind). But if there was more "presence" when it's doing something, maybe giving hints/clues, wiggled inside my head more, then I'd be more conflicted. The narrator would be perfect for that.

I also want to stress that control without direction/reasons is the reverse if anything. In BG2 we get challenged by an elder brain as it tries to fool us. It's always a battle of wills. Same goes with the bhallspawn inside of the player. You always know it can either be helpful or dangious.

I know it's young, but if it's struggling then have the narrator mention that. Tap into the players sense of sympathy for it. That's someting the tadpole could exploit and something the narrator would be perfect for. This would also mean the tadpole wouldn't outstay its welcome because of the reused lines. Because then the lines would be different to fit each situation. Tadpole gets used more. Narrator gets used more. Entertainment value added for the player.

Personally I think the devs just couldn't come up with new and interesting things to say and so are using a reused line. I'm hoping that gets patched out later. But knowing other games have pulled this stunt and never change it I have my doubts.

Just recently I needed to trigger many of those Authority lines for one bug-report and maybe I remember something wrong, but it looks like they added some diversity. I'm still hoping for more diversity, but seems they are working on it.

Is that in regerds to old lines earlier in the game, or in regards to having it not repeat as much the later you get into the game?