Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Party Locking... dont

I appreciate the callout, but for the record Community Update #7 was posted before the launch of EA and we haven't heard anything since from Larian about party locking since then. So it's also as @Tuco said; we're working off of a single paragraph posted prior to EA 10 months ago + our knowledge of how DOS2 worked.

Can someone (politely) explain to me why this is actually a bad thing? Since afaik without knowing any details of "the plot" how is it possible to say that this is good or bad? Surely it depends entirely on a mass of writing which we have not seen and only have vague speculation about? I can see ways in which party locking can work fine, and ways in which it might be jarring, but can't make a judgement until I see how it is implemented. It might be bad and it might be good - so as it stands I only have an opinion that if writers have an idea they should have the strength to commit to it.

1.) I don't want to be required to play the game multiple times to experience all the companions. Especially since, even if I did do 3-4 playthroughs to get all 9-12 companions, I'd still likely miss out on cool interactions between companions that I never had together in the same playthrough. I play rpgs for the story, gameplay, and companion interactions/quests. Locking out the majority of companions each playthrough severely hurts one of those 3 pillars.

2.) D&D is a class based system, and party locking prevents changing up my party to combat different threats. If I don't have SH in the party, then am I just locked out of a cleric companion for the rest of the game? If my party doesn't include the 1-2 companions with thieves' tools proficiency (let alone expertise), then lock-picking is made incredibly more difficult for the rest of the game. Am I supposed to heavily nerf one of my other companions, spending one of my very-limited ASIs/feats to gain said tool proficiency? Hiring mercenaries is a lame solution to this because you can't interact with mercenaries; see point #1.

3.) Finally, Larian's history works against them. The only data point we have is DOS2, where there wasn't a reason for the rest of the companions to be killed off. They just were, because Larian said so. Barring any comment otherwise from Larian, it's reasonable to be worried that they'll do a similar thing for BG3.

My take on it as that people don’t like this approach to replay ability due to locking out content from what might for some/many(?) be a single play through.

I also think it stems from the fact that DoS2 didn’t do it very well. I on the flip side argue that people with clear agendas hanging back in your camp waiting for Tav to get a move on makes little story sense so why shouldn’t they leave?

However I might be naive in the sense that I would like to think these characters play a part in the narrative another way and that other party options might become available to me in later acts. I think many don’t believe Larian will take this approach (or even like that idea, preferring the mass effect 2 style where you just rotate people in and out and experience the whole story as they see fit).

Basically I agree with all three points. Though I'd like to add, that I think it's not just Larian's DOS2 that makes me think party locking will be handled poorly, it's the way how poorly the gaming industry generally handles "meaningful choices" as more like a mere marketing scheme, not as a real feature. Meaning they don't offer real plotline branching and interesting outcomes based on your choices/blunders, and offer therefore just pittance of differing storylines/content to motivate you to play again.

I agree that Gale's story didn't have to play out the way they had it play out. But I would argue that Wyll's story is fairly down to earth. He's a guy who, as a young man, sold his soul in a moment of pain and anger so that he could have the power to prevent tragedies like the one he had just experienced. Now, after using that power to become the hero he wanted to be, he's chaffing at the things his deal requires of him and is looking for a way out. Unless I've missed something, that's not even an oversimplification of his story, it's just his story. And I think that's actually extremely relatable. He made a bad choice for complex reasons both good and bad, and now as he's seeing the full consequences ofhis actions, he's regreting them and trying to find a way out.

Also, maybe I'm missing something here as well, but Lae'zel seems to be a pretty standard example of her people. I'd never heard of the Githyanki before this game and I've never followed the Forgoten Realms lore so please correct me if I'm wrong of course.

That having been said, I still agree that locking the party firmly at only four characters would not be the right choice for the game.

Because the plot is irrelevant.
The idea is bad from a mechanical standpoint as it will severely cripple the amount and variety of characters interaction across a single playthrough (both in general sense and even worse when tied to a game that defaults to a small party of four characters).
Whatever they'll do with the plot will be their attempt to adjust to this mechanical decision, anyway, and not the other way around.

Most post here can be sumarized as "bcs i said so". :-/

Yet not one person has been able to provide any reason as to why its a good idea, beyond "play the game again" and "I wouldnt mind it either way"

I detailed MANY reasons in this thread already, saying "can someone politely explain to me why this is actually a bad thing" is willfully ignoring every point against it that has been brought up, and using Tone Policing as an excuse (dismissing anything you don't want to hear as impolite) to ignore peoples valid and well thought out points.

Similarly I would have difficulty under this criteria explaining why you shouldnt do just about anything, because any amount of response that amounts to "dont" can be inferred as hostile simply because of the nature of telling someone they shouldnt do something.

Roll Locking is bad for like, a bajillion reasons, and the only reasons people give for it being good are "trust in the grand plan" and "replayability" and "I dont mind it either way"

That seems understandable to me. O_o
Since we have no idea what will happen, we cannot know it that what will happen (aka that what we dont know) will be good.

I would say its more like you detailed many reasons for why you would not like it ... but that is pure subjective.
Or to be even more exact ... you provided us few your own constructed scenarios, and then told us why you would not like those scenarios you constructed.

Now, we can hope that Larian read it, and take it under concideration ...
But we all know very well, that if they "simply decide that after this quest everyone but MC will be dead" ... then, no matter how many of us would not like it, and no matter how much we would not like it ... that is what will happen.

I could list a half-dozen reasons why it's BAD to stick a fork into a live electrical socket, and zero reasons why it's good to stick a fork into a live electrical socket. But nobody rational would say that "maybe it's a good idea if you try it because we don't know."

You do realize what the point of Early Access is, yes? It's to make changes now, instead of waiting for the full release. Especially because major balance and story changes are very rare for Larian to do after the full release.

You consistently seem to dismiss most suggestions or requests to change something. Why? How do YOU know that the change will NOT be good? How can you say that the change will be bad for the game? This is why details about problems and possible solutions are better feedback than vague "maybe it'll be good" or "I like it now just because".



Since by that metric, anything anyone wants is subjective, then the same applies to you. Is your position "No one should make any suggestions to the game whatsoever"? A lot of the time, it seems like you're largely here to argue against every idea that someone else has, just for the sake of shutting down everyone else's ideas.



Sure. The DM can absolutely declare "Rocks Fall, Everyone Dies" at some point in the campaign for absolutely no reason at all, or just for their own amusement's sake. But if they do, will the players come back to another game run by that DM? Probably not - and in this context, that means not buying future Larian games.

Just because the DM can do something, doesn't mean that doing something is a good idea.

You dont? O_o
In our country, electricity is teached on the most basic scool ... around 11-13th year i believe. O_o

Yes ... im all in in discuising for hours any change of litteraly anything that is in game. O_o
I dont quite see the reason why speculate about why some fan-constructed scenario, that may or may not be in game.

People presented what they created ... and they stated they dont like it ... what more is here to discuss?

You tell me ... im not the one who have that feeling.
From my point of view, YOU consistently seem to dismis any statement i make ... why?

It depends on change.
If we are still talking about THIS topic ... i dont, you dont, nobody except Larian employee do ... that is my point.
And if we are talking about other topic ... first thing we should do is move to that topic. :P

As far as i know, i never did.

Again ... i never did.

Sure it does, i would say there is not much point in stating obvious ... but yeah, you got that one right.

As i stated several times allready, i dont believe that any human on planet is physicaly able to state anything objectively ... every information is processed by our individual brains, and therefore its subjective ... even if only by tiniest of details ... by transmitting that infomation futher, our subjectivity is inprinted, and information is alternet futher by every other transmittion ...
If you want some example from real world ... there is some whispering game, popular between childern ... i believe its called "Chinese whispering", in english ... we call it "silent mail".
We are not robots, to spit out exactly the same information we get on input.

Therefore its only logical that we all state our subjetive opinions ...
And objective opinion is created afterwards, based on them.
Now of course you could object that person who will collecting our subjective opinions will altern them by his own peception ... and you will be right. But as long as that person is developer, i dare to presume that is only logical to presume that his product will be alternet by himself.

On the contrary.
But in this particular case, i dont see much reason to argue about that someone dont like scenario, he created himself.
Even more curious to me is the fact that some people (if you read whole topic, you should be able to find them ... i shall not name anyone) seem to be so angry about that scenario, as if they were convinced that this player-made scenario is actualy officialy confrimmed. O_o

Again, you said that, not me.

Wich, if we use common sence and logic ... seems like something Larian (especialy now, since they are cooperating with WotC, who have quite long history in providing fairly high quality entertainment ... and especialy, ESPECIALY NOW, since this certainly is not first topic on this theme? ) will not do ...

So what exactly is the point of talking about how much we would not like, unless we actualy believe they WILL do that?
That is answer i would really like to hear.

This is where you're going to get a reply along the lines of "I have endorsed plenty of people's ideas o_0, so your statement is just false :)", and other things that essentially boil down to "my opinion is correct and my ideas are superior and if anyone says differently they're definitely wrong" while ignoring the most important points.

EDIT: I was too late so the whole point of my post is kinda moot now. Oh well