Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General New players and the problem with Shar

Which would apply to any new IP a player joins. I used Dragon Age Inquisition and Mass Effect 3 as some examples. New players wouldn't understand the bonds between these characters in Mass Effect, and context on the OGB and the Warden, and Hawke would be missing. To the point of "What's OGB mean" missing. New players would need a breakdown of "the story so far", and in those franchises, it wouldn't be too hard, there are comics for 2 and 3 in Mass Effect, to build towards a desired outcome in 3, and Dragon Age Keep, which is great for long time players, but doesn't give a newbie much context, just lets them pick a path. Here? There are 50 years of real time lore. At what point do they start writing that "the story so far" to catch new players up? An intro movie could be longer than some games, just brushing up on the basics, let alone getting into the specifics. Not to mention that, for players that are truly curious about what they're missing out on, there's 50 years of literature that they can look up online, up to and including a simple search for "who is Shar". Yes, it is reasonable to expect players to do some footwork, especially if there is in game literature that they either missed, or missed the significance of.

Then there's the obvious stuff: Maybe they don't want all that reveal initially. If someone sincerely believes that Shar is evil, and that is correct, why would they take the only cleric, so far, in the game with them? Some players wouldn't, and would be lighting the forums on fire for not providing an alternative "healer". For all I know, that's already happened. Would anyone want to travel with a Gith? What about Gale? Aside from the "gotta feed him magical items" issue, what about the level of obsession required to get where he got? Wyll? Too much information could taint the pool every bit as much as not providing any. Fortunately, some lore is available, in game. It just requires the player that's curious about the lore to find it. It's not like new players are coming in at the beginning of the story, where all that exposition is needed, sometimes. Horizon Zero Dawn did a great job of "you know nothing of what came before", and then expanding on what you knew as you went. Players have the opportunity, in game, to get some basic knowledge. If the knowledge they garner doesn't justify an outraged response in their minds, they're not obligated to take that response. It's existence isn't bad, just because it's there. Their confusion about it's existence is irrelevant, on their first playthrough. It isn't intended for them, but can't be excluded because "a new player won't understand".

Edit: Spelling is hard w/out enough coffee.

Shar hasn't been mentioned yet, but there is a prelude comic-book series begun. Dungeons and Dragons: Mindbreaker, featuring Minsc and his band encountering strange cult activities in Baulder's Gate. So perhaps we'll be bought up to speed there.

No.

I hated when this defense was brought up with the Star Wars sequel trilogy and I hate it now. You should not have to consume supplementary material (if this even meets the criteria, by the way) to be informed/educated about a key development in another product.

Well, Robertthebard mentioned Mass Effect comics, so I mentioned the DnD comics. It wasn't meant to be a defense of consumerism. Besides I agree anyway.
The information is there to found if someone bothers to look. Everything you need to know is on the internet. If you don't have internet you aren't reading this and didn't buy the game anyway, but your DnD playing friends can still fill you in.

+1

Hold on for one second...what information in particular? Let us ensure that we are both on the same page.

it's not the same situation.

Disney was putting details in their movie, that you could, and still can only get, if you bought and read their book. Anything you want to know about D&D lore, you can find information about on the internet. Swen himself used the forgotten realms wiki, when he talked about a golden dragon in the last panel from hell. If it's that big of a deal for a person to just look somethings up, they don't really care.

Dude. If I played D&D tabletop with a new player, I, the DM, would explain who Shar is to my player. I would not say, "Look Shar up on the internet.".

As soon as Shar or anything Sharran related popped into the story, I'd make the player roll a Religion roll.

If they got a 5 or higher, I'd say, "You think you heard about this before, but the details are sketchy. She's a cleric, and her spell focus is an onyx stone. You think it might be to an evil goddess."

If they got a 10 or higher, I'd say, "You're not sure, but that could be the symbol of the evil goddess Shar, goddess of darkness and loss. Her cult is known for violent, wicked acts."

A 15 would be, "That is a symbol of Shar, most definitely. She is the goddess of darkness and loss. Her cult is violent and evil and it is very secretive. She is one of the primordial deities of Faerun, and she has a twin sister named Selune, goddess of the moon and light. They have been at war for countless centuries."

A 20 or more and I would tell the player all the above and say, "You know a LOT about Shar. If you run into anything additional that is Shar related, I'll just tell you about it and point it out. In fact, if you want to know more, look it up online. Your character knows all that you can find about Shar online."

I would most certainly NOT make my player look it up online. My players would lynch me. Why should it be any different for a video game? They can literally tell you in a few lines who Shar is and make it a part of the game that you, if you don't want to hear it, can literally hit the space bar and skip and players who know nothing about Shar would not be so totally lost.

This is apart of D&D people. It's a HUGE part of it. Players are not supposed to be expected to just magically know all the lore themselves. That's the DM's job.

This is basic stuff; how sad that you have to spell it out.


"apart" =/= "a part" .

If I played tabletop D&D would change everything to make it better...

Am I the only one who isn't coming to Baldur's Gate for the 'deep' FR lore? The reason they don't go into it in PHB, is because it's the generic placeholder for a setting, good for anecdotes that explain a game but not for close scrutiny

"The internet" doesn't apply here for player background knowledge. "It's in the comics" is an even weaker argument.

When I'm watching a LotR movie I won't be pausing it to do extensive online research because the script fails to set the stage properly and explain what I need to know. And the LotR trilogy does explain everything you need to know even if you're never read the books because the filmmakers are professionals. You should expect Larian to be equally proficient in telling a story through an RPG. I'm not going to exit the game and start doing research, I just want to enjoy the game. For the writers, that means focusing and introducing content slowly enough and they are struggling at that because they tend to think grandiose and amazing rather than personal and emotional (how BG1 started).

Deep lore is necessary for a good story, though. And while FR's may not be the best of the best, it can certainly holds its own if implemented properly. That it doesn't, and it fails to hold up to scrutiny, is all on Larian.

Why have Shadowheart wear what she does if no one's gonna notice, neither the druids who've got history with Shar nor the Chosen of Mystra? Why have her reveal feel like such a contentious moment, when they skipped any kind of build-up to it (would have just needed the aforementioned people giving a brief history lesson after questioning)?

Frankly, like someone else said, i think they're just throwing everything at the wall and see what sticks. The story they decided to go with exposes the player to mindflayers, vampires, fiends, cambions, Shar, playable and non-playable drows and gith. All that within the first few hours of play. I'd honestly be more shocked if the whole thing didn't feel halfbaked at large.

Yes, because no TT session ever had players with a Player Handbook, or any of the other myriad of books aimed specifically at the players, right? You must have to spend a few sessions in a row, just explaining things, since you don't require your players to have resources created specifically to prevent that. You see, the problem with trying to translate your TT experience into a video game is that someone around the table is going to have these reference books. That is specifically what they are for. I wonder, how many interruptions of gameplay does it take before your players are suggesting the new player get X, Y and/or Z books? I've played at tables where you weren't allowed to sit down if you didn't have at least a Player's Handbook.

I should note here that the comics I'm referencing are interactive comics that come with the game, and allow you to make choices from the previous game(s), I'm not sure how the ME 3 comic functions, if it gives choices from just 2, or from 1 and 2. It is included specifically to give new players some of the critical choices in 1, for the ME 2 comic.

Well said! +1

Dude. It doesn't take much to say, "Shar is an evil goddess of darkness and loss.". Much quicker for me to inform my players of this than to have them look everything up. The DMs job is storyteller. As the story progresses, he/she informs players of things like who Shar is AS they encounter stuff. What is the point of a Religion skill if players never use it to learn stuff about deities that their characters know?

Do DMs not keep pertinent notes on hand anymore? If the players' characters are going to be encountering a significant NPC tied to a religion, it would behoove the DM to write down details on said religion in the event someone attempts to have their character recall knowledge they themselves (i.e., the player) weren't already acquainted with.

Actually, it's to provide a template for the players to tell a story, within the confines of what's provided. A story teller tells the story. In DnD, the players create the story. This is done through choices they make, dice rolls they make, or fail, and how they choose to go about combat. As a DM, you should have an outline, not a play by play, of what's expected to happen. There are around 50 years of lore to this setting, how much are you going to explain, for how long, before other players in your session get frustrated because resources are available. To your "Shar is...", there are books that cover that in game already. At some point, it's up to a player to find/read them. How many dialog wheel style choices do you provide for your players, instead of them organically asking questions? How are you going to code every possible outcome into a cRPG? The OP's issue is that there's a response that is overtly hostile, and they don't understand why. The problem is, it's not the only response available, but for some reason, it's mere existence is bad because they don't understand why it's an option. It's an option because some of us know what it means, and shouldn't be locked out of that response because a new player doesn't understand it. This is the equivalent of you sitting behind your screen saying "You can't say that because Josephine is new, and won't understand why you feel that way".

Are you seriously arguing that players should have to read D&D lore books if they want to know things in-game? Players are essential parts to a D&D story, yes, but they don't create the world in most cases. The DM does (either making it up himself or using others' worlds) and it's the DM's responsibility to give out that information to the players when appropriate. There are some cooperative game styles where players can make up information/lore/mechanics to incorporate into the world (obviously I'm not talking about backstories here), but that's certainly not BG3.

As has been said, there is a reason that Religion skill checks exist in D&D. It's so that players can make those checks to gain character&player knowledge about the world.

And it's not just books, but Shadowheart herself who comments on Selune at every opportunity, and will speak at length about Shar, and the Justiciars.

I don't think the game does enough to set up how our characters would react in this world ( for us to roleplay) but I don't think the lore around Shar is as much of a problem as it seems.

There's another angle too, our current companions aren't good aligned, so maybe the outrage we're looking from the world would be present from the others.

rpg dialogue choices are interesting when it allows for scenarios where your character can have more knowledge than the player, it also sometimes allow for us to shape our characters backstory a little by choosing dialogue that implicitly creates one. I personally would like to have more dialogue with your character talking to themselves, not only because it creates opportunities for exposition, but also because it would be a good way of establishing what kind of character you are without it being something your just telling someone else, making it unreliable.