Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General If the main hero dies, and you don't revive them, can you still finish the game?

If you had played one of the origin characters first in DOS 2 you might feel differently. Playing again with your 'generic' character, you'd see all the places where your character was left out, or contributed in a less meaningful way to the story. As I suspect people might feel if they play Tav the second time.

You've got to see the difference between a game like Arcanum or Dragon Age, and Icewind Dale or Solasta; one has a story about your character, and thematically linked to your companions, and the other just occurs to a party of characters who contribute nothing to the story apart from determining if it happens or not. The story of BG3 looks like its going to be about the origin characters, but it only 'happens' to Tav.

I think that’s well put. The question is what we want to do about it. Games that make the story more about our custom character tend to do that at the expense of our freedom to make that character whoever we want. That’s true of the original BG games, where we had a pretty fixed origin story and were limited in the sort of age our characters could sensibly be considered to be, even if we had flexibility about race or class. Even something like DA:O, much as I loved it, gave us a reasonably limited set of origin options to pick from. I like that BG3 gives us far more flexibility and wouldn’t want that reduced.

On the other hand, I don’t want our companions to be more boring or less connected to the story, as their backstories are potentially a great source of interest and engagement. The ability to actually then play the story as one of those companions is not a must-have for me, but I do think it’s a nice idea and wouldn’t want this to be ruled out not because it would be a bad experience in itself but because it could make another experience seem worse in comparison.

So, for me, given that I don’t want to compromise either my freedom to play whatever Tav I want, or the connection of my companions to the plot, and kind of like the idea of being able to step into those companions’ shoes if I want to in later playthroughs, what is left?

Perhaps I just have to accept the existing trade off between flexibility versus plot connection, but I hope not. There seems to be plenty of opportunity to make what “happens to Tav”, or rather what Tav does, in the story satisfying enough to even the scales, particularly if Larian continue to refine the opportunities to roleplay our classes, races and backgrounds. As I’ve already said in this thread, I don’t think Larian have quite hit the mark with EA but it feels like there are some improvements they could make that would get them there without totally overhauling their approach.

I could see it being kind of neat if player character death meant rerolling a new character inserted in to the narrative at the same point like playing at a table, but otherwise the ergodic nature of player agency within a videogame negates that possibility. When playing at a table, agency is shared with the whole party; when playing at a computer, agency is entirely in the player's hands, so it is far more practical to have a save system than a reroll system.

I never liked Larian's approach to "origin" characters for the very reason mentioned above: it's not Tav's story, it's not MY story as a player. I really have no agency over the narrative.

Warhammer 40k Darktide does something similar where the story is actually about the NPCs who send you off on missions, and you're just a reject prisoner doing grunt work for them. Doesn't work there very well either.

I know it's been said to death ... but BG2's companions are a platinum standard that have yet to be matched in any game since. We've all been seeking that level of interaction since and it's not there.

Let me try again.

The problem is that in BG3 it is not your main character's story, and yet the game plays as if it were. If you change written character dynamics in your games, but not adjust gameplay dynamics than issues appear that haven't been there before.

In BG1&2 the game's story is YOUR story, you are the protagonist and all companions act as SIDE characters to your story. BG3 is different and acts as an ensamble cast - but relations between player and companions aren't the designed for the purpose of the singleplayer. That something works in one title, doesn't automatically work for a different titles if core mechanics of the narrative have been changed.

D:OS2 shares a lot of issues with BG3, as in broad strokes it is more or less the same game. I definitely DID have issues with D:OS2, specifically with origin system, but this particular issue is less prominent as companions are lesser. They have very little narrative presenceand for the most part act as mercenaries with occasional story bits. I was never under an impression that any of my companions in D:OS2 had strong opinions about anything - they were there, had things they wanted to do, but for example none of them strongly campaigned for a particular way to leave the opening prison island.

As I said earlier, if companions in BG3 were written just a bit less forcefully, or narative found some excuse for them to turn to Tav and say: "We can't agree or anything. Those are the options, you decide and for the greater good we will fall in line, even if we will hate your guts if you won't choose our option". BG3 could address it narrative dissonance in many different subtle ways, they just can't be asked to (at least based on what we have access to).

No one asked here to gut companions or rewrite them. Just to make Tav vs companions dynamic a less jarring. Sure, gameplay will demand cetrain contrivances. It is your writers job to make those contrivances feel natural and ideally an extension of the story and themes.

Except the only game on that list I haven't played is Arcanum? The origin stories in DOS 2 were side missions to the main game, which was my character's story. The only thing I'd be missing are the companions that don't follow you onto the ship, and I'd be missing them either way. Since it's possible to get the "real" ending to the game, no matter what character you play, whether or not the comps can be the main character doesn't matter. The only thing that changes are the side quests you have available, since they're dependent on who you bring with you. While the Red Prince's story is very important to him, if you don't bring him on the ship, the game plays out the same way, minus his side content. The same applies to all of them. That was my biggest complaint about DOS 2, and something that I absolutely hope doesn't get repeated here.


BG 3 absolutely is your main character's story. It doesn't matter if it's Tav, or Shadowheart, whomever is the main character owns the main campaign as their story. Again, how much of the story and consequence do you expect to get in Act 1? As to why they'd follow you, I've already listed off some reasons why they might. I picked up on them straight away, playing the game. How do people that continue to go on about how "bad" the narrative is miss them? Maybe they do so because they missed them?

1. Before you could rescue Shadowheart from her pod, did you at least try to? That might be a reason she'd follow you, wouldn't it? Now that it's possible, if you rescue her, that would be a reason why she might.

2. Did you rescue Lae'zel from the Tieflings? That might be a reason she'd follow you, don't you think?

3. Did you win the wrestling match with Astarion? Even if you lost, what stops him from killing you? The tadpole.

4. Speaking of the tadpole, I've been told that it's narratively insignificant, or isn't sufficient reason for them to follow you. Given the examples cited here, and considering the life and death nature of what's going on, according to everything the characters know at the time, how is self preservation not a sufficient reason to agree to follow whomever the main character is.

I really hope this post comes across in the constructive way in which I intend it, and if it just seems condescending instead my sincere apologies in advance . But it does feel like we’re at an impasse and going round in circles here, and possibly importing preconceptions and frustrations from earlier debates on similar topics rather than addressing what we’re each saying today.

I’ve not seen anyone say that the game, and specifically the common challenge of the tadpole, doesn’t give the party members a reason to band together. As far as I can tell, the debate is about party dynamics once they do, and specifically whether the game does a good enough job of explaining why the player character is in fact the “main character”, particularly when they’re a custom character. I suspect that almost everyone would also agree that there are some initial events that could, in some playthroughs, move us in the right direction, including things like saving Shadowheart or if Tav happens to be the sort of character who would be able to make peace between the very different personalities among the rest of the companions.

But some folk (myself among them) don’t think those initial moves do enough to make plausible the party dynamics we see in act one, which have everyone pretty quickly apparently following the PC. We also maybe have a stronger preference that the game gives us a good story about if and how our player character comes to lead, whereas others are happy to make a bigger imaginative leap and accept it. Those of us who do see problems disagree about how serious they are (I certainly see them as less serious than others do), as well as on the diagnosis of the underlying cause and certainly on how best to fix them.

I think, though, we should probably just accept the fact that at least some folk don’t find the party dynamic in early access compelling while others are okay with it, and take it from there. It’s feeling pretty futile for those who don’t think there’s a problem to try to persuade those who do that there’s actually no issue, just as much as it’s hopeless for those of us who see some issues to persuade those who don’t that they’re wrong, but it kind of feels as though that’s what we’re stuck doing.

And apologies to the OP, as all of this is strictly speaking off topic, but as it’s interesting and they’ve not objected I hope that’s okay!

Thanks @The_Red_Queen I feel like I can’t get with Robert on the same wavelength to communicate as to what the problem is, not to mention to discuss if it is a problem. I will be signing off.

In Lae'zel's mind, SHE's the main character. Her personality is brash/arrogant/self-concerned, so even saving her from a cage imo isn't sufficient reason for her to defer to Tav as the leader. Why doesn't she try to force Tav to follow her, especially if/when Tav avoids the Creche? "You there, [lowly human], you saved me removed a slight inconvenience. Now you get the privilege of following me."

Similarly, Gale clearly knows much more than non-spellcaster characters (he says as much when you meet him) and is also arrogant. Sure, there's strength in numbers, but initially there is no reason to follow Tav over one of the other party members or take the lead himself, especially if Gale thinks he knows more about what is going on.

For the other 3 party members...Astarion is sheltered and probably beaten down into a tendency to submit, SH is a tsundere who's missing memories, and Wyll is incompetent (mechanically->I think he's knowingly "faking it until he makes it"), so it's just barely acceptable that they all defer to Tav.

Basically, it feels like you have to headcannon things in BG3 to explain why every single companion is blindly following you. Whereas in other games, the MC is usually given some sort of special power/calling/authority/tie to the story, which helps explain why you have followers.

Alternatively, if there were more consequences for not doing what companions wanted (e.g., quickly going to the Creche), then I'd be more okay that companions initially follow Tav. I really like that Wyll will leave if you side with the goblins.

Plainly, Tav isn't the protagonist. Tav is shell to give people customizability while the writing is in the origin stories. Because of this, Tav is always ancillary to the events of the group other than direct interpersonal dialogue which is all discovery about the companions anyway, and eventual relationships. And the fact that his is how all Larian games work, I don't see this one being any different.

+1. This is the truth. The story here is more like Icewind for Tav, but like Dragon Age for companions. Which means your Tav is ultimately nothing more than a tag-along who does dialogue sometimes.

*Clutches head in despair*

It’s of course totally valid to feel this way, but can’t we accept that these are personal opinions and it’s okay for other players to feel differently? Talking in absolutes this way we’re never going to be able to have a constructive discussion. If all we want to do is restate our immovable opinions in opposition to others, then it feels as though we’ve already done that to death. Apologies for getting frustrated. I’d probably better bow out of this thread, too.

*Dejectedly trails offstage following @Wormerine*

If you disagree that's fine. I'm not going to yell at you or anything. I'm just agreeing with the position about the vibe I get from the story. My view is that you could continue the story without Tav, but Larian won't let you, not because Tav is integral to the narrative, but because Larian sets the mechanics around the player. Everything progresses with Tav as proxy, and yet if this were a novel, you could erase every reference to Tav and the story wouldn't be any different.

We've had conversations about this on the forum at great length before, I posted a link on page one to one of them.

You can be the main character, and the protagonist and still not be the leader of the group. I know we've been conditioned to conflate the two, which I suspect is why robert keeps talking about why our Tav is the main character and leader as though they are synonymous, but they don't have to be.

Okay, you just caught me before I logged off .

I can sympathise with this view, and I know you’re far from alone. I was just getting grumpy after my earlier post about the fact we seemed to be stuck at an impasse about people continuing to talk about facts and truths as opposed to views. I mean, obviously we all know that actually we’re right, but it usually makes for a more constructive discussion if we at least pretend others’ perspectives have some merit .

I’ve already said my two penn’orth about the story and party dynamic in this thread so I won’t repeat my position but, having poured oil on troubled fire, I really will ban myself from it now.

No one is stopping you from disagreeing with me. Nowhere does anyone say that my perspective is right, in fact it's usually the opposite.

I'm so sorry for dragging you back in as you're trying to leave, but you have a point. I think we just say statements, and the "It is my view that," is usually implied (but of course everyone has to be right... I AM ALWAYS RIGHT!!! :P )... It leads to absolutist language, which is not helpful. I respect that you may feel differently. It's entirely possible for two people to look at the same thing and come away with fundamentally different impressions. I guess that's why we have a forum, so that we can engage dialectical process by which we come to some semblance of agreement. Not on everything, but on some things.

So, as I sit here typing this, all of the characters, in every game I currently have active save files in are doing the same thing: Absolutely nothing. If I were to log in right now, and wait for Lae'zel to lead us to the creche I could go make a sandwich, feed the cat, take a shower, maybe go for a ride on my motorcycle out to my brother's house, about a 30 minute ride one way, and when I got back, we'd be in exactly the same spot we were in when I left. Surely, if this were truly one of the companion's stories, they would take the steps required to advance it. But they can't. They rely on us, the players, to make those decisions. Whether we follow the plans of one or another of the comps or not, whether we're the leader of the group or not, everything is based on what we, as players, do.

It's not a movie, or an audible book, where if we leave it on, it will play out until the end, and it would be really boring if it were. This is what "Player character syndrome" is, the result of the game requiring input from the player, through the main character. Whether Tav is the leader or not, it's Tav, through us, that decides what happens. So, we get our consequences, and the comps decide you're not taking it seriously enough, and leave the party. What then? There's certainly precedent, Khalid and Jaheira will do it if we don't go to Nashkell soon enough. Minsc can attack you for not rescuing Dynaheir soon enough. Sten will attack you in Origins if you're too busy with side quests to tackle the main objective, in order to wrest control of the party from you. So, what do we do for the rest of the game if all of the companions bail? Because, quite frankly, what else is it that they're going to do? Attack the main character? If they've already left the group, you're now a party of one, and if they kill you, it's Game Over.

Why does Larian need to justify your character's existence, or explain why you're the one making the decisions for the group? Wouldn't this have the affect of just creating another Origin character, with the only difference being you get to decide what they look like, and what class? Isn't that part of the problem in the first place?

Regarding leadership, I think combat command is being given a big discount here, particularly how both Lae'zel and Shadowheart both show appreciation after initial battles and Wyll can't contain his awe.

MC _is_ the battle commander, no matter where they lead from. For me personally, I would definitely defer to a proven combat winner; A) you live, B) you get better, and C) look at all the better gear and resources you're accumulating.

(And this harkens back to my early TT D&D where one player would have a character noticeably higher level and you'd base party tactics around that.)

I'm not arguing that Tav has more story than origin characters, but I am saying that whoever MC is seems to be considered combat leader in-game.

Sideplot Burden

We seem to be treating the lack of an involved side plot as a disadvantage, but actually Tav doesn't suffer sideplot burden. That's Tav's notable strength.

Astarion looks at the party and sees everyone wanting to get rid of the tadpole. Gale knows none of the others want to give him powerful magic items. No one has much inclination to see Shadowheart safely to Baldur's Gate. I could go on.

Because Tav doesn't have an involved side plot competing with the main story, they're the common denominator. The closest natural ally to all. Maybe everyone doesn't agree with Tav, but they definitely don't agree with each other.

****

It'll be interesting to see origin characters as MC. Will they have a harder time keeping the party together? Will they be able to complete as many companion subplots as Tav?

I'm hoping not. I'm hoping that Tav, and only Tav, is the MC that can complete breadth of side plots.

BG3 doesn’t have neither real time clock, nor in game time - so yes, if you are not playing the game than the game is not be played. A better example would be a book that you need to turn the pages off and read it to “progress”.

I don’t know what any of what you have written has to do with writing issues, which is what was being discussed. That a book requires turning of the pages, doesn’t mean that the characters in there don’t have to behave in believable manners. That a game relies on player imput doesn’t mean that it’s characters are absolved from criticism… which seems to me what you are trying to argue.