Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - Suggestions & Feedback Stupid decisions should have consequences

To be immersed in a video game, the game needs to react to your decisions in a way that makes sense, and we know that this is ultimately Larian's goal with the game as they have stated similar things in multiple interviews. However, there are some things in the game right now that feel as if the DM is holding our hand and protecting us from any stupid decision we make.

Example. In a tabletop session, nobody in their right mind would go 'lol I attack the red dragon with my level 4 character' (unless their trolling ofc). It would most certainly lead to a TPK, and the DM may even tell you that this is a stupid idea - but if you end up doing it, the dragon would most certainly attack you (afterall it is a proud and powerful being that just got gravely insulted).
On the other side of the argument is the dragon: why in all nine hells would a literal red dragon decide to flee from such an insult, let alone the proud and arrogant githyanki dragon rider?

If we make a stupid decision in the game, then let us bear the consequences. Afterall, we can just reload if we die, which we could not do in a tabletop session.

+1! +1! +1!

Agreed in spirit. I'm curious what consequences there will be for making a deal with Auntie Ethel or giving Astarion Necromancy of Thay or letting yourself be branded. There's already a punishment for using the tadpole too much, so the potential is there. On the other hand, letting Volo operate on you can end up being strictly beneficial depending on your build... Either way, hopefully we'll have to suffer the fallout of all of our bad calls.

I feel like the scene with Voss was going for something like "I'm not going to waste my time cleaning up this trash, my minions are more than enough to deal with them". Which would work fine if he didn't just personally fry some Flaming Fist...

Yeah, if you walk up to him and talk to him, this is completely fine and it makes sense that he will have his minions deal with us. But you can also shoot the dragon from afar and he will immediately fly away. This is what bugs me.

I'm pretty sure this will be changed for the full release but for now its probably simpler to just let the dragon fly away than to make a fight.

Ah, I didn't think of attacking the patrol outright. In that case, yes, if you attack a red dragon unprovoked at level 4, especialy after all the warnings the companions give you, you should expect to get incinerated.

I wonder if it's done this way because they need Voss and the dragon to be alive for later. If we were allowed to fight them, you can bet some people would find a way to cheese or cheat their way to victory, which could break some things.

I hope you're right!


Larian are already doing a great job at making sure that whatever the player does, the game has an answer to it. I'm sure that, if Voss dies, a solution could be found to move the quest along. The simplest would probably be to have a different NPC take Voss' place when he is dead.

I may have answer for that ...
But it is SERIOUS spoiler ... so i hide it under several clicks, and therefore i totally wash my hands over if you ruin it for yourself.

Exactly ...
Sometimes i really wonder why companies so often lack the guts to let some "important NPC" die ... since all they need to do is replace him/her/it. O_o
(Yes BioWare, looking at you ... looking at Dragon Age: Inquisition ... and looking right at ressurected Leiliana! :[)

The only reason i can think about is cost for voice acting, wich imediatly double for that specific NPC ...
But then there is question if it cant be done differently. O_o
Like for example dont using character that could die in previous game, for major role in sequel.

Yes, that's exactly why I mentioned needing the characters for later in the first place
Hard to talk about this stuff without going into full spoiler territory


Speaking of Bioware, Mass Effect did that. A number of important characters could die in ME1, and you could get your whole team killed in ME2. In ME3, the dead characters who had a role to play were replaced with generic NPCs who executed the necessary plot beats. I'm not sure if this is the solution, however, because the replacement NPCs, for the most part, were rather bland. Unsurprising, but imo it does a disservice to the original characters if some random mooks whose names you won't even bother remembering can accomplish almost everything on their own. Not to mention, if you kill a character, and then the same thing happens regardless, just with a placeholder replacement character, it's almost like you hadn't done anything at all.

Not that Voss and his dragon seem to be particularly important even with datamined content in mind, but who knows.

It all depends on how wild writers will go ...

Yes, if character gets simply replaced and everything else stays the same ... then i agree, its a little dull. :-/

As far as i know, in ME-3, if certain characters were dead you were unable to get certain endings ...

But there is even worse options ...
For example that mentioned Leliana. -_-
She can die in first game ... litteraly ... and then she reappear in third game, completely healthy and she even TELLS YOU that she was dead for a while. -_-
THIS is how you make player feel that he didnt done anything at all.

Actually I just remebered that there is something like this already in the game:


Since there are hints that we will meet the refugees again when we arrive in Baldur's Gate, I imagine Larian already have to deal with this exact problem - that an important NPC dies, but the story must go on. Therefore I don't think it wouldn't be possible to do the same with Voss.

I like to make stupid decisions myself, usually it makes the game more interesting, even more challenging, sometimes you get more gaming-time.

Sucks to say but consequences doesnt even fit to Larian's Style. Choices probably. Now I figured it, consequences are the reason why this is so dramatic?

Choice is only a choice if there is a consequence. If you have 100 guns to choose from, and all work the same then it's not a choice. That is what D:OS2 suffered from. Seeming unlimited choice (you can go anywhere, kill anyone, do anything) but with so little consequence the game felt shallow.

I don't think all paths, choices and consequence need to be equal, but the game would benefit from a better payoff or better reasons to pursue certain paths.

+1 ! :]


+2!

I'm all for stupid choices having consequences. I like seeing 'nonstandard game overs' in video games and I don't like it when games make it feel like your character can't fail. I don't like to see 'bad' choices result in a lesser experience with less content however.

As an example, In a book or tabletop game, a poor choice or outcome (like losing a fight) might result in the party being captured. That's just another exciting new chapter in your adventure/the hook for next week's D&D session! A frequent occurrence with video games I see however, is that failure or poor choices often just lock you out of content. quests fail, you don't get the reward, there's no follow-up, etc. A complaint I have voiced before in regards to evil choices in BGIII is that evil choices often feel like they are treated as 'wrong' choices and result in you being cut off from content without any equivalent experience to replace it with.

+1. Especially since you can reload in a video game.

In a tabletop session, yes it is dumb to attack an Adult Red Dragon at low levels. But - and I recognize this is a very polarizing topic - some people would argue that DMs should adjust situations to the party's decisions and not kill characters. Please don't focus on whether you agree with this statement. All I'm asking is that you acknowledge that some players will be very attached to their characters and not want them to die. In some heroic-fantasy games, player death is not expected and the DM will come up with other punishments/results of characters' actions (see @Leucrotta's post above).

In BG3, if the Red Dragon attacks me with its full might and TPK's my party, then that's a great! I get to experience the consequences of my actions - getting my ass handed to me - but then can reload and still have the characters I like playing with. Additionally, this opens up the possibility for challenges: I might try again and again and again to beat this dragon, feeling real triumph if I eventually figure out a way and win after countless grueling battles. This possibility is lost if the dragon just flies away when you attack it, or it every enemy we face is scaled to be at a level we can easily win against.

Phrased Differently: Video games can be more punishing than tabletop because it is much less effort to reload than to create new characters.

I totally agree with you here - tabletop PnP is different from videogames in that regard. Nonetheless you still want to feel like the game reacts logically to your decisions.

I would fix game shallowness with excellent character design. Narrator could help a ton too. Consequences doesnt add that much to this kind of game imho. Cyberpunk had lots of consequences it worked for that kind of game, probably because theres only one character. I think consequences are lots more fun when you're playing only one char. 6 character who all screw up, becomes boring fast.

Oh yeah, I am 100% behind this. There should be actions, obviously stupid actions, that lead to instant death - TPK.

Like with the dragon, a cutscene plays where the dragon takes off and then incinerates your entire party - No combat starts, you just die. There is precedent for this with Planescape Torment, certain actions lead to no-combat instant death.