Larian Banner
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Sep 2017
member
Offline
member
Joined: Sep 2017
(gonna leave it to Sardurian now, 2vs1 and all that, and I gtg anyway smile Have fun!)

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Originally Posted by endolex
(gonna leave it to Sardurian now, 2vs1 and all that, and I gtg anyway smile Have fun!)

I'm out anyway. It's become a manure heap.

Last edited by Sadurian; 19/10/20 02:14 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by endolex

It's you who keeps bringing up Pen&Paper as a "reality simulator" (don't worry, I'm fully aware of the world being fictional) - but any serious simulation (and you take this one *very* serious, it seems) should be consistent and make sense as a whole. "NPCs are negligible" doesn't make sense as an agrument without the world the simulation is supposed to portray making that distinction as well, and therefore having an in-world explanation for the lack of complexity of most NPCs.

Of course it doesn't make sense, this is why we have suspension of disbelief. It takes a lot of work to create a character sheet for every single individual and the simple reality of it is that if they are not important to the story it is not worth stating them and you can use several basic guidelines that exist in the DM manual in order to give them the appropriate stats if necessary without creating a sheet. I also don't understand where you connect numerical values and if you would like I can describe several NPCs with no character sheets from my campaign that are wildly varied and extremely complex while adhering to these principles.

Originally Posted by endolex
Originally Posted by Argonaut
It's entirely possible to restrict actions from a gameplay point of view? Yes. Levels are part of gameplay. Experience is a part of gameplay.


And yet, background doesn't 100% figure into experience, there's no defined system for that, otherwise you'd have every player list what their character did before the campaign started, and that would have to be translated by an exact formula into XP or milestones, resulting in their appropriate character level (or the other way around: take character level and limit by some exact formula to what is possible for a character of that level to have accomplished before the campaign started - again, heavily subjective (and therefore subject to DM decision) anyway.

Yes the metric we use for this is called common sense. As I have already pointed out you cannot start a level one character as being the headmaster of the academy of magic because you simply do not have the skills and it raises several questions to which there is no answer. I never said background figures 100% into experience I said that background is used in conjunction and consideration of your level to determine what it realistic for you to have accomplished and what is not. Again. A level one character being the headmaster of the academy of magic does not make sense. It is not realistic. It is not believable. It creates cognitive dissonance and internal inconsistency.


Originally Posted by endolex
Yes, and your only interpretation of 'noteworthy' seems to be by game terms metric. Something that is quantifiable on the character sheet. But guess what, someone with a Persuasion bonus of +6 at Lv1 is deemed *very* persuasive, while someone with that bonus at Lv 20 would be mediocre at best. It's all relative, and doesn't serve to describe strength + weaknesses of a character in general, narrative terms. Trying to translate char sheet progression into narrative and vice versa in a 100% way is what you apparently like to do, and that's fine - just don't expect everyone else to follow your dogma on this.

A +6 bonus to persuasion is not considered very persuasive and you can fail to persuade someone with a DC check of 10 which is beyond easy. I may be misremembering but I'm quite sure there is a section in the PHB that even explains this as well as explaining how having, for example, a 9 in intelligence doesn't mean you are a blithering idiot but could just mean you lack education.

Originally Posted by endolex

Oh, are we really going there? laugh Also, accusing me of something you yourself brought into it, and all in the same sentence? Should I maybe quote your own signature to yourself now?

Please point me to a statement where I attacked your person.

Originally Posted by endolex
I don't know about you, but DnD never managed to trick me into believing it was real, nor that it was a particularly well-crafted representation or computer model that could deliver accurate predictions of how things could work in a fantasy setting. None of those definitions work for me here, so: Nope, DnD ain't a simulation for me. It's a game system designed especially for player convenience - well, let's say with the *goal* of player convenience.

It means nothing if a definition does not work for you. If you are pretending to do something you are participating in a simulation by definition. If you are going to ignore reality to suit your arguments then I congratulate you on deceiving me into wasting my time and we can call this quits.

Originally Posted by endolex

I don't debate the existence of objective reality, it's just you who takes a lot of your own convictions and misrepresent them as objective reality to which everyone else has to subscribe - or be "wrong". If this works well for you, by all means, stick to it. Just maybe accept that other people can easily seem to ignore said objective reality and have fun doing that. Take the example of the poster above me - wizened old crone at Lv1. I don't see a problem with that, not even with said crone saying she knows a lot about herbs, nature, remedies etc. - in game terms, level-adjusted via proficiency bonus to what a Lv1 character can do obviously, but in narrative, still damn knowledgeable about this stuff. It doesn't bother me, and I find it more enriching than any notion of narrative-gameterm-consistency.

My own convictions? I have included definitions and examples and have pointed out your lack of evidence, reasoning or willingness to even address the simple examples I have provided for you. You may notice how I said starting as a level 1 wizened old crone is 100% okay and I have no problem with it but that it doesn't mean you get to start with level 5 spells. She can have this knowledge you describe at level but her proficiency and capability to use it to brew potions, harvest ingredients etc will be limited by the numerical value that scales with level. I.e her proficiency in crafting is directly tied to her level which is exactly what I said.

Originally Posted by endolex

You can make even that extreme example work if you really want to, and quite easily: said champion was betrayed, severely wounded / cursed or otherwise incapacitated, and now is barely back in action, having to basically re-learn a lot while in constant pain that limits what he can do (represented by character level, comparable to a level drain of older editions. Also due to the betrayal and general shunning of his person, his renown is now barely worth more than the normal soldier background, he can pull a few strings, call in some remaining favours, but that's it.

Yes you just proved my point. You cannot have the champion without including many reasons to limit his effectiveness and power because it does not make sense, it is dissonant and it is unfun for everyone else involved. You quite literally just demonstrated the exact principle you are arguing against. /applause

Last edited by Argonaut; 19/10/20 02:19 PM.

I am here to discuss a video game. Please do not try to rope me into anything other than that. Thank you.
Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sadurian
You use of a lot of 'you cannot'. This may be the case in game that you are running, but you should understand that not everyone thinks the same as you do.

Originally Posted by Sadurian
Originally Posted by Argonaut
The assumption of the starting section is that the character starts at Level 1. Only later does the game talk about starting at higher levels. No, it does not explicitly state that the piece on choosing a background is only to be used for characters of a particular starting level, but then it doesn't need to. It is pretty obvious that the advice is there for starting players and starting characters, and the default assumption is starting at Level 1.

Please point me to the section in the PHB where this is stated, otherwise it is just your opinion. This is the 5th edition of a system that has existed for decades, it should not be so difficult to find evidence if this is the case

Seriously? You want absolute proof that the introductory section of the book where it guides you through creating you first character, explaining what a character sheet is and what the various heading are, is aimed at starting players? Or that the default assumption is that they start at level 1? You have gone beyond any kind of reasoned argument here.

No, there is not large-type heading stating that Chapter 1 of the Player's Basic Rules is designed to help new players create a character. There is, however, a very strong suggestion backed up by the language used, the way that everything is carefully explained, the fact that it is introducing readers to the game, and the fact that it is standard practice. Yes, D&D5e is the 5th edition. I have played all the others and all the other editions had similar introductory chapters which spoon-fed you through character creation. All were aimed at new players. All assumed starting a character at Level 1 for new players.


Then please provide the evidence, otherwise it is nothing more than your opinion and a moot point. You think the fifth edition of a system that has existed for longer than you have been alive is being written with the automatic assumption that everyone is going to play the same way? That everyone is going to start at level one? Despite decades of community feedback proving otherwise? Despite their being caveats all over the PHB that affirm that you may choose to do things your own way and no one campaign starts or plays out the same?

Provide. Evidence. Anything, something to support this opinion that you are presenting as fact.

Originally Posted by Sadurian
Originally Posted by Argonaut
Starting at level 1 is not even a common practice in tabletop DnD and 5 minutes with google will provide you with countless discussions on the subject.
Here are a few examples.
https://www.dungeonsolvers.com/2019/08/19/what-level-should-you-start-your-dd-5e-campaign-at/
https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/6a4mn4/whats_level_should_i_start_my_players_at/

Yeah, that's not going to cut the mustard.

Discussions on optionally starting campaigns at higher level do not mean either that starting at Level 1 is not common practice, nor that the Introductory chapter of the Player's Guide is not aimed at starting players. I have seen plenty of discussion about doing away with alignment, that doesn't mean that Alignment-less games are common or that the basic rules don't assume that Alignment is used.

You have not provided this evidence. This means it is your opinion. This means other peoples opinions are just as good as yours wherever you like it or not. I have at provided supporting evidence for my opinion, would you like to do so? I provided you with two source of people proclaiming that that game does not always start at level one and that their preference is to not start it at level one which means that factuall and statistically there is proof that games do not commonly start at level one. Please provide evidence to support your conclusion.

D&D 5e PHB Pg4 "Introduction"
"Unlike a game of make believe, D&D gives structure to the stories, a way of giving consequence to the adventurers actions."
"This increase in power is reflected by an adventurers level"
D&D 5e PHB Pg6 "Adventures"
"Each character brings particular capabilities to the adventure in the form of ability scores and skills, class features, racial traits, equipment and magic items."
D&D 5e PHB Pg8 "Step-by-step characters"
"Your character is a combination of game statistics, roleplaying hooks, and your imagination."
D&D 5e PHB Pg 8 "2. Choose a Class"
"Typically, a character starts at 1st level and advances in level by adventuring and gaining experience points(XP). A 1st level character is inexperienced in the adventuring world, althought he or she might have been a soldier of pirate and done dangerous things before. Starting off at 1st level marks your characters entry into the adventuring life. If you're already familiar with the game, or if you are joining an existing D&D campaign, your GM might decide to have you begin at a higher level, on the assumption that your character has already survived a few harrowing adventures"
D&D 5e PHB Pg12 "Tiers of play"
"In the first tier(level 1-4), characters are effectively apprentice adventurers. They are learning the features that define them as members of particular classes, including the major choices that flavor their class."
"In the third tier(level 11-16), characters have reached a level of power that sets them high above the orginary populace and makes them special even among adventurers"

I can go on if you are not yet convinced.

Last edited by Argonaut; 19/10/20 02:45 PM.

I am here to discuss a video game. Please do not try to rope me into anything other than that. Thank you.
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Back to the OP's point:

DA had some interesting companions that managed to be 'normal', and the D:OS games likewise had companions that managed to be interesting and have their own motivations without being weird caricatures.

Given that Larian wrote the D:OS companions, I'm disappointed that the BG3 ones are so grotesquely odd. Aside from anything lese, it is usually the case that twe empathise more with those we can relate to. Having <wow> <zap> magical alien character backstories is less interesting for me in the long run than a slow and measured character development for someone I can genuinely relate to somehow. The fighter who wants to return to his homeland because his wife is pregnant and is constantly fighting between the desire to chop things up and the desire to preserve his life for the sake of his unborn child; the rogue who is wanted for a crime and seeks to clear his name and become an honest citizen, but can't help pickpocketing or filching things. Or how about the young wizard who is wanting to make a name for herself in the world but has no self-confidence or belief?

Many of us are RPG players, some of us are GMs, and some have even built their own game-worlds. A few have decades of experience. I'm sure that Larian could have gathered thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of interesting companion ideas if they had asked for contributions from the fan-base. Some of them might even have been suitable to include in a game.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Back to the OP's point:

DA had some interesting companions that managed to be 'normal', and the D:OS games likewise had companions that managed to be interesting and have their own motivations without being weird caricatures.

Given that Larian wrote the D:OS companions, I'm disappointed that the BG3 ones are so grotesquely odd. Aside from anything lese, it is usually the case that twe empathise more with those we can relate to. Having <wow> <zap> magical alien character backstories is less interesting for me in the long run than a slow and measured character development for someone I can genuinely relate to somehow. The fighter who wants to return ito his homeland because his wife is pregnant and is constantly fighting between the desire to chop things up and the desire to preserve his life for the sake of his unborn child; the rogue who is wanted for a crime and seeks to clear his name and become an honest citizen, but can't help pickpocketing or filching things. Or how about the young wizard who is wanting to make a name for herself in the world but has no self-confidence or belief?

Many of us are RPG players, some of us are GMs, and some have even built their own game-worlds. A few have decades of experience. I'm sure that Larian could have gathered thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of interesting companion ideas if they had asked for contributions from the fan-base. Some of them might even have been suitable to include in a game.


+1

And to be fair, I don’t know that it’s the backgrounds themselves that make them unrelatable as much as how they’re just not believable as people at all. Their uniqueness is just ham fisted as all hell. Everything they wear, everything they say, their whole aesthetic is screaming their backstory. Seeing a kid at the mall wearing all black baggy clothes, chains and eye liner, you don’t think to yourself ‘this is someone who’s clearly depressed’ Instead you think ‘this is someone trying to look depressed, and who’s naive’. You see it when you bring up the wrong subject with a housewife who’s trying to be cheery and she starts to tear up then pretends nothing is wrong.

Queue a bunch of people jumping in to say ‘hum well *actually*... in Baldurian culture people often use color to...”

Joined: Oct 2020
A
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
A
Joined: Oct 2020
To me it seems mostly: We don't know enough about their motivations yet.

And I suspect there's a link between "Snowflakes" as you put it, and True Souls

Joined: Oct 2020
S
stranger
Offline
stranger
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Argonaut
Originally Posted by endolex

It's you who keeps bringing up Pen&Paper as a "reality simulator" (don't worry, I'm fully aware of the world being fictional) - but any serious simulation (and you take this one *very* serious, it seems) should be consistent and make sense as a whole. "NPCs are negligible" doesn't make sense as an agrument without the world the simulation is supposed to portray making that distinction as well, and therefore having an in-world explanation for the lack of complexity of most NPCs.

Of course it doesn't make sense, this is why we have suspension of disbelief. It takes a lot of work to create a character sheet for every single individual and the simple reality of it is that if they are not important to the story it is not worth stating them and you can use several basic guidelines that exist in the DM manual in order to give them the appropriate stats if necessary without creating a sheet. I also don't understand where you connect numerical values and if you would like I can describe several NPCs with no character sheets from my campaign that are wildly varied and extremely complex while adhering to these principles.

Originally Posted by endolex
Originally Posted by Argonaut
It's entirely possible to restrict actions from a gameplay point of view? Yes. Levels are part of gameplay. Experience is a part of gameplay.


And yet, background doesn't 100% figure into experience, there's no defined system for that, otherwise you'd have every player list what their character did before the campaign started, and that would have to be translated by an exact formula into XP or milestones, resulting in their appropriate character level (or the other way around: take character level and limit by some exact formula to what is possible for a character of that level to have accomplished before the campaign started - again, heavily subjective (and therefore subject to DM decision) anyway.

Yes the metric we use for this is called common sense. As I have already pointed out you cannot start a level one character as being the headmaster of the academy of magic because you simply do not have the skills and it raises several questions to which there is no answer. I never said background figures 100% into experience I said that background is used in conjunction and consideration of your level to determine what it realistic for you to have accomplished and what is not. Again. A level one character being the headmaster of the academy of magic does not make sense. It is not realistic. It is not believable. It creates cognitive dissonance and internal inconsistency.


Originally Posted by endolex
Yes, and your only interpretation of 'noteworthy' seems to be by game terms metric. Something that is quantifiable on the character sheet. But guess what, someone with a Persuasion bonus of +6 at Lv1 is deemed *very* persuasive, while someone with that bonus at Lv 20 would be mediocre at best. It's all relative, and doesn't serve to describe strength + weaknesses of a character in general, narrative terms. Trying to translate char sheet progression into narrative and vice versa in a 100% way is what you apparently like to do, and that's fine - just don't expect everyone else to follow your dogma on this.

A +6 bonus to persuasion is not considered very persuasive and you can fail to persuade someone with a DC check of 10 which is beyond easy. I may be misremembering but I'm quite sure there is a section in the PHB that even explains this as well as explaining how having, for example, a 9 in intelligence doesn't mean you are a blithering idiot but could just mean you lack education.

Originally Posted by endolex

Oh, are we really going there? laugh Also, accusing me of something you yourself brought into it, and all in the same sentence? Should I maybe quote your own signature to yourself now?

Please point me to a statement where I attacked your person.

Originally Posted by endolex
I don't know about you, but DnD never managed to trick me into believing it was real, nor that it was a particularly well-crafted representation or computer model that could deliver accurate predictions of how things could work in a fantasy setting. None of those definitions work for me here, so: Nope, DnD ain't a simulation for me. It's a game system designed especially for player convenience - well, let's say with the *goal* of player convenience.

It means nothing if a definition does not work for you. If you are pretending to do something you are participating in a simulation by definition. If you are going to ignore reality to suit your arguments then I congratulate you on deceiving me into wasting my time and we can call this quits.

Originally Posted by endolex

I don't debate the existence of objective reality, it's just you who takes a lot of your own convictions and misrepresent them as objective reality to which everyone else has to subscribe - or be "wrong". If this works well for you, by all means, stick to it. Just maybe accept that other people can easily seem to ignore said objective reality and have fun doing that. Take the example of the poster above me - wizened old crone at Lv1. I don't see a problem with that, not even with said crone saying she knows a lot about herbs, nature, remedies etc. - in game terms, level-adjusted via proficiency bonus to what a Lv1 character can do obviously, but in narrative, still damn knowledgeable about this stuff. It doesn't bother me, and I find it more enriching than any notion of narrative-gameterm-consistency.

My own convictions? I have included definitions and examples and have pointed out your lack of evidence, reasoning or willingness to even address the simple examples I have provided for you. You may notice how I said starting as a level 1 wizened old crone is 100% okay and I have no problem with it but that it doesn't mean you get to start with level 5 spells. She can have this knowledge you describe at level but her proficiency and capability to use it to brew potions, harvest ingredients etc will be limited by the numerical value that scales with level. I.e her proficiency in crafting is directly tied to her level which is exactly what I said.

Originally Posted by endolex

You can make even that extreme example work if you really want to, and quite easily: said champion was betrayed, severely wounded / cursed or otherwise incapacitated, and now is barely back in action, having to basically re-learn a lot while in constant pain that limits what he can do (represented by character level, comparable to a level drain of older editions. Also due to the betrayal and general shunning of his person, his renown is now barely worth more than the normal soldier background, he can pull a few strings, call in some remaining favours, but that's it.

Yes you just proved my point. You cannot have the champion without including many reasons to limit his effectiveness and power because it does not make sense, it is dissonant and it is unfun for everyone else involved. You quite literally just demonstrated the exact principle you are arguing against. /applause



I agree with all the points you have made in this thread thus far. Levels, experience, etc all these game rules reflect what the character is capable of. You cannot have a character who has accomplished things that only high levels would be able to in the backstory of a level 1 character unless realistic restrictions that do not shatter the suspension of disbelief are introduced to explain why this great champion is now on par with a fresh adventurer.

Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Argonaut
*snip*

Oh give me a break. Sorry I shared my opinion about NPCs in a game I don't have an eidetic memory of. Though, remember no matter HOW HARD you go on this forum those characters aren't getting full rewrites.

I'm talking generally, renegade drow like half-dragons are a kind of precious unique thing. Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying the characters *bad* but this attitude that Tiax or Minsc were some masterful creation that goes down in the history of CRPGs as one of the all time greats and Shadowheart is some trite character is just really off base. The characters were tropey and fun. Shar-Teel is basically Xena. Montaron and Tiax are insane but it's really in a fun goofball way. Minsc is completely hammy and overacted and fun and so is Edwin. I'm not trying to tell you these are Invader Zim characters her but certainly part of why you like them is because they were presented in a fun way. I mean even Jaheria and Khalid have a really ridiculous tropey dynamic of her being this ball buster and him being the meek stuttering husband.

I could get behind the argument that BG3 NPCs aren't as fun as BG1 or BG2 NPCs and are maybe too broody, but the opposite? No.

Originally Posted by Argonaut
Dynaheir, Minsc, Garrick, Imoen, Viconia, Xan, Xar, Montaron.

Oh man, I'm using "straight" as in "played straight" not to refer to sexuality but to refer to the characters being hammy/tropey.

Joined: Oct 2020
S
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
S
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Aurgelmir
To me it seems mostly: We don't know enough about their motivations yet.

And I suspect there's a link between "Snowflakes" as you put it, and True Souls



You think so? I really wondered about this. Everyone has this super elaborate back story but then the PC is kind of the odd man out. The PC not being the ‘chosen one’ is fine, but when everyone else is so ostentatious it kind of throws up some flags.

Like in Predators how they realize that everyone there is really dangerous, but then Topher Grace (initially) dispels that theory because he claims to be a normie.

Oh no.... is this like a Revan thing. Did we lose our memories and were actually the chosen one

Joined: Feb 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Back to the OP's point:

DA had some interesting companions that managed to be 'normal', and the D:OS games likewise had companions that managed to be interesting and have their own motivations without being weird caricatures.

Given that Larian wrote the D:OS companions, I'm disappointed that the BG3 ones are so grotesquely odd. Aside from anything lese, it is usually the case that twe empathise more with those we can relate to. Having <wow> <zap> magical alien character backstories is less interesting for me in the long run than a slow and measured character development for someone I can genuinely relate to somehow. The fighter who wants to return to his homeland because his wife is pregnant and is constantly fighting between the desire to chop things up and the desire to preserve his life for the sake of his unborn child; the rogue who is wanted for a crime and seeks to clear his name and become an honest citizen, but can't help pickpocketing or filching things. Or how about the young wizard who is wanting to make a name for herself in the world but has no self-confidence or belief?

Many of us are RPG players, some of us are GMs, and some have even built their own game-worlds. A few have decades of experience. I'm sure that Larian could have gathered thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands) of interesting companion ideas if they had asked for contributions from the fan-base. Some of them might even have been suitable to include in a game.


I confess I find myself missing some down to earth, relatable companion. I'm a roleplayer too, and in my personal experience I've discovered that when it comes to creating successful and beloved characters, less is more. Like makeup!

Even those supposedly leaked companions continue to be very extra, apparently there's even a werewolf to have a twilight stand off with Astarion. But, we shall see, wherever all of this goes.

Last edited by Goldberry; 19/10/20 06:13 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
I have, admittedly just skimmed a lot of this, so I may have missed where someone may have actually pointed this out, but we are having this discussion with the full knowledge that the current batch of Origin characters can be the Player Character, right?

Joined: Feb 2020
member
Offline
member
Joined: Feb 2020
Originally Posted by robertthebard
I have, admittedly just skimmed a lot of this, so I may have missed where someone may have actually pointed this out, but we are having this discussion with the full knowledge that the current batch of Origin characters can be the Player Character, right?


Yes. But it seems the vast majority of people prefer custom characters and rather dislike Larian's Origin mechanic since DOS2. It'd be nice to see a poll to get an idea of numbers though, I can only speak from what I read around this forums.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Goldberry
Originally Posted by robertthebard
I have, admittedly just skimmed a lot of this, so I may have missed where someone may have actually pointed this out, but we are having this discussion with the full knowledge that the current batch of Origin characters can be the Player Character, right?


Yes. But it seems the vast majority of people prefer custom characters and rather dislike Larian's Origin mechanic since DOS2. It'd be nice to see a poll to get an idea of numbers though, I can only speak from what I read around this forums.

Yeah, like or dislike really isn't the issue here. The issue is that of course they're all "special snowflakes" because they can be the main protagonist. Since this is the case, and even just running with BG, Bhaalspawn would equate to "special snowflake", the whole argument is moot. They are special because they have to be.

Joined: Oct 2020
enthusiast
Offline
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Worm

Oh give me a break. Sorry I shared my opinion about NPCs in a game I don't have an eidetic memory of. Though, remember no matter HOW HARD you go on this forum those characters aren't getting full rewrites.


Your apology would be accepted except you seem to believe than an outburst is warranted in any way. You chose to make an argument based on cherrypicked memories and not the full picture.

Originally Posted by Worm
I'm talking generally, renegade drow like half-dragons are a kind of precious unique thing. Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying the characters *bad* but this attitude that Tiax or Minsc were some masterful creation that goes down in the history of CRPGs as one of the all time greats and Shadowheart is some trite character is just really off base. The characters were tropey and fun. Shar-Teel is basically Xena. Montaron and Tiax are insane but it's really in a fun goofball way. Minsc is completely hammy and overacted and fun and so is Edwin. I'm not trying to tell you these are Invader Zim characters her but certainly part of why you like them is because they were presented in a fun way. I mean even Jaheria and Khalid have a really ridiculous tropey dynamic of her being this ball buster and him being the meek stuttering husband.

I didn't find Tiax or Montaron to be goofballs. Xena is not a goofball character so I don't understand what that comparison elicits. Minsc confides in you several times throughout BG2 about how his cheery attitude and hijinks are the coping mechanism he uses to deal with the fact that he believes he is a failure. Even in BG1. He knows he is an idiot.

Originally Posted by Worm
I could get behind the argument that BG3 NPCs aren't as fun as BG1 or BG2 NPCs and are maybe too broody, but the opposite? No.

It is not a black and white choice. BG NPC's are not broody they are complex, full of depth and personality and they are very real and flawed people. Just like in real life very few people are not dealing with problems and trying their very best at it. There is no guidebook to life. These characters reflected it. They could be goofy, or funny, and funny things can happen to them but ignoring the reasons why these things happen detracts from the writing on a fractal level. Missing one detail makes your impression of it completely incorrect. For example many people talk about Edwin and the belt of gender but seem to forget that it is a genuinely cursed item and the only reason he is in that situation is because he is arrogant and impatient because he believes himself to be better than anyone else while also knowing that there are people stronger than him. He isn't simply power hungry. Comedy comes from that situation but there is so much more depth to it than "lol genderswap hijinks".

Originally Posted by Worm
Originally Posted by Argonaut
Dynaheir, Minsc, Garrick, Imoen, Viconia, Xan, Xar, Montaron.

Oh man, I'm using "straight" as in "played straight" not to refer to sexuality but to refer to the characters being hammy/tropey.

My bad, it's hard to tell sometimes and I erred on the side of caution. These characters still stand. They ARE played straight while continuing to be as realistic and multi dimensional as possible. There are some obvious inspirations in the characters but I don't think they can fall under tropey the way that BG3 characters do. The thing about calling something a trope is that there is usually no explanation for their behavior or it is incredibly one dimensional. I can explain those characters in great depth years after I've played the game because they made such a strong impression on me during a time where my only other pass time was reading. I can go on and on and on about this subject but my point is that people always describe the older characters as funny or goofy or whatever because they are trying to prove that BG3 characters are brooding teenage edgelords but the reality is that you can be troubled, haunted, struggling, vulnerable, insecure and many other things while not acting this way. These characters can still be humorous and funny and constantly pulling pranks and hijinks and still be incredibly deep and complex.

BG3 characters are not bad because they are tropey. They are bad because they are poorly written and extremely underdeveloped.

Last edited by Argonaut; 19/10/20 06:29 PM.

I am here to discuss a video game. Please do not try to rope me into anything other than that. Thank you.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
I quite like the companions of BG3 though right now I'm leaning towards Shadowheart being my favorite. Just like how in Baldurs Gate 2 and Throne of Bhaal Jaheira is my favorite out of all of them in that game.

Last edited by Iszaryn; 19/10/20 06:45 PM.
Joined: Oct 2020
journeyman
Offline
journeyman
Joined: Oct 2020
Argonaut, if you think Xena is a completely serious piece of fiction I'm afraid we are so far apart that there's no point in further conversation.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Originally Posted by Iszaryn
I quite like the companions of BG3 though right now I'm leaning towards Shadowheart being my favorite. Just like how in Baldurs Gate 2 and Throne of Bhaal Jaheira is my favorite out of all of them in that game.

Yeah, Jaheira was good. A similar character would work nicely in BG3. I rather liked most of of the BG and BG2 companions, although some of them were a little bit over the top in their dialogue. Nonetheless, I prefer their more down-to-earth style to the BG3 companions so far.

Joined: Oct 2020
addict
Offline
addict
Joined: Oct 2020
Originally Posted by Sadurian
Originally Posted by Iszaryn
I quite like the companions of BG3 though right now I'm leaning towards Shadowheart being my favorite. Just like how in Baldurs Gate 2 and Throne of Bhaal Jaheira is my favorite out of all of them in that game.

Yeah, Jaheira was good. A similar character would work nicely in BG3. I rather liked most of of the BG and BG2 companions, although some of them were a little bit over the top in their dialogue. Nonetheless, I prefer their more down-to-earth style to the BG3 companions so far.

They had the definite advantage of always going to be nothing more than support characters, that could permanently die and not affect the main story. Here, where they can be the protagonist, not so much of an advantage any more.

Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
Cleric of Innuendo
Offline
Cleric of Innuendo
Joined: Oct 2020
Location: Rugby, UK
That assumes that the PCs have to be outlandish. Mine are certainly not; they are special in that I am creating them and imbuing them with a personality of my own choosing, but this would not hold true of the current (pre-gen) companions anyhow. In a PnP game I will give my characters some interesting backstory, but this is not something that can really be done when playing a CRPG. I mean, I suppose it could be, but who is going to read your bio.? Maybe if you are multiplaying? For the pre-gen companions you don't even get to write your own backstory.

No, would prefer to make my own PC every time, but if forced to play a pre-gen then I'd more happily play one of the old BG/BG2 NPCs than any of the current BG3 crop.

Last edited by Sadurian; 19/10/20 07:22 PM.
Page 5 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5