Larian Studios Forums Baldur's Gate III Baldur's Gate III - General We Have A Release Date

But do we have ANY WORD on options for switching out characters for dialogue and using the best character in the party for skillchecks?

I'm going to harp on this because, once again, Multiplayer feels like 1 of 3 things to me:
1. You're not part of a party, because you can be sitting there saying 'I'm the Druid! Let ME talk to that druid! Let me just tag into the conversation!" Like in the tabletop game! Let me just say "Hey! Excuse the Fighter there. I see you are a Druid, like me!" even though the Fighter tripped the event trigger.
2. You go in utterly uncaring that your teammates could have done any dialogue or skillchecks better. Which kind of defeats the point of a balanced party. Why should I bring a Druid and a Warlock for ANYTHING other can combat if I trip the event flag as a Druid for a Warlock discussion?
3. You read walkthrus and spoil yourself in order to ensure the Druid hits that Druid event trigger instead of the party Barbarian with 8 Int and 9 Cha.

In tabletop; if the DM says 'The NPC replies with 'I'm a Druid; what do I care about you, Barbarian?' then the party Druid would say "Oh! I'm a Druid as well." etc.
So why can't we switch out who's talking on the fly?

In the tabletop, the DM could say 'This skillcheck looks difficult, maybe some of the plants could be of use." At which point the Druid would say "I'm good with plants; I'll roll it'.
So why can't we switch out who's attempting a skillcheck on the fly?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

But, again, it should only be a tag out with people in the active party. Not people back at camp.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Until this happens, and I hate to say it, but when my friends ask 'So, how's the multiplayer?' I HAVE to reply "Game is great! But the inability to switch who's doing what dialogue or skillcheck is kind of a multiplayer killer and annoying in single-player."

Please, Larian; Give us SOME SORT OF WORD on if this is even being considered.
I want to be able to tell my friends 'Multiplayer is rough due to the dialogue/skill checks right now, but they are going to change that. So the game is worth grabbing.'

Its interesting that since Day 1 we have option to link our game to twitch stream and let people make our decisions for us ...
But we still cant let our party express their decisions. O_o

I mean, even if we would still be unable to switch our talker (wich would still be horrible) isnt there any way to use that mechanic so our party can somehow vote and pick?

//Edit:
BTW ... if i may use your topic to note another thing that would be nice if Larian would express their opinion on ... how about Starting gear?

I thought that the voting system is also available for multiplayer? (Never played it in coop, so don’t know).

There's a whole bunch of features that were KIIINDA promised at some point and never showed themselves in EA.

It's still not clear if they are going to be dropped entirely or implemented and "coming hot" without any testing and reiteration whatsoever.
Frankly I'm not even sure which of the two scenarios worries me the most.

I am hopeful we will get a PFH that will finally unveil the fabled main branch of the game, there are still so many question marks and so many basic features. I guess Larian really don't want to answer some question until the very end? Since play testing is currently ongoing, my guess is that they want that public feedback first before showing it to the pitchfork crowd.

Totally want these two features!

Giving this a bump, as I've still heard nothing about allowing us to switch out in dialogues or skillchecks.

Well if this post gets enough attention they'll probably see it, take it the discord amd everywhere else so hopefully they see it.

Voting system was presented as a solution to multiplayer dialogue.

I also come from tabletop and it makes all the difference being able to choose who participates in dialogues and skill checks, once these characters are close to the scene.

As for multiplayer, we have the option for those not in the dialogue to vote on the response that will be given.

However, it's still not ideal.

Another problem with multiplayer is that we can't deactivate shared initiative, which also hinders gameplay dynamics in some cases.

Given Larian's paltry communication (I'm being generous with that description) throughout EA I wouldn't hold your breath.

Concidering what he said at 6:50 ...
Its the same thing as if they would include chat for party, or if you would have all players on Discord ... they can coment on what is happening, but they are still just spectators.

Not even close to what people wanted.

What is the release date?

End of August

I agree, though I think the solution isn't a simple one, nor implementable at this stage of development. It is a distinction between "let's make what we have - so a singleplayer dialogue system as seen in other RPGs - work better in multiplayer" and "let's design a new type of a dialogue system that would work in multiplayer and allow all players to participate in the conversation". First of, I think there is a value to BG3 voting system (or Solasta's visible coop player's cursors) even for people who are on chat, Discord on even in the same room. I for one know that in the long run, I would rather pick my prefer answer whenever I want to communicate my preferance than verbally state it every single time, especially if there are more than two players. And being able to communicate your preference WITHOUT chat/discort etc. is a worthwhile addition.


From single player perspective, I don't think incorporating the whole party would be unreasonable. Larian could either A) embrace party dynamic (like let's say Wasteland2) and allow us to freely switch between available party members, or B) just acknowladge different party members if appropriate - so still have "face" of the conversation but allow players to use appropriate companions for relevant dialogue choices with specific tags, and pick character's with best chances to pass a skill check.

I am not trying to say (or not say) that either of those would be a good for BG3, but both would be problematic in multiplayer. Option B) from player persctive would be pretty much just what we have now with the face of the conversation likely picking options (and potentially forcing characters they don't control to do stuff), while for option A) to work, one would need to figure out how to decide who gets to control the conversation. The closest we got to solving that problem is Old Rebublic and D:OS1 - neither of which were sufficient solutions for a game with as many decisions as BG3.

To make dialogue work in multiplayer one would need to design a multiplayer dialogue system - and that's is not something that I have an ability to conceptualize.

Probably ...
I mean, i honestly thought that if you turn that twitch integration on, whatever gets most votes at the end of voting is acutally selected ... but im no streamer myself, so i cant really test it ... and all videos i found nobody ever bothered to let it go to the end, they simply allways waited few seconds and then they picked whatever had most votes themselves.
So, this was most likely my misstake ... bcs if twitch integration works exactly this way, so people only tells you what they want, but choice is ultimately allways up to you ...
Then indeed we have no usefull tool for multiplayer, except telling curently talking character what we want. :-/
It kinda sucks, but i gues its better than nothing.

And i dont think it would be too hard to implement to be honest. :-/
I mean, just imagine:
Your Tav is talking with Kagha ... option to persuate her appears ... but your Tav have low charisma, so you want to use Wyll.
> You switch to Wyll (this option is allready in game)
> As you control Wyll, you simply click on either Tav or Kagha ... therefore you join ongoing conversation (bcs Wyll *IS* there the whole time) ... wich gives you exactly the same conversation screen ... and you pick (and most importantly talk) as Wyll.
> Later, if you want to switch back to Tav, you simply repeat the process.

I mean, what problem it can cause?
Maybe tags ... if your Tav is a Druid or Tiefling ... there are tagged options that Wyll shouldnt have ...
But since the game (as far as i know) should be prepared for case when Wyll is doing all the talking, it should be prepared for this aswell ...
The only question is, if engine is capable to interupt ongoing conversation, and replace it with another at same place, or other way around ... or if there is some kind of engine (or, lets be honest, Larian capability) limitation, that only allows conversation to flow in single way. O_o

That would be my prefference ...

I mean, my Warlock fails most of Intelligence checks, since its my dump stat ...
Would be really nice if Gale would roll the same checks aswell, and offered explanation of things instead of Narator. :3

That, and ofc option to use both:
[Persuation] Please, let the child go.
and
[Wyll][Persuation] Please, let the child go.

But that is basicaly the same scenario as abowe, minus need to pick another character and join conversation ... it would be much more fluid tho.

But that all was said countless times.
If Larian wants to do something like it ... they would ...
And if not, then i gues we have to deal with it somehow. :-/

But i think we all can agree on it holds incredibly huge potential.

For me it's a big disadvantage of the game to not be able to choose the char who is talking. It's not so much for the actual results, more often than not it is not important wether you have higher Charisma or not. It's for immersion because I see the party as a group of equals. It is nonsense to assume that people like Shadowheart, Lae'zel or Gale would simply let "Tav" be the leader, even if he is bad at things, just because he/she is so "player-ry??". The group would choose the best option, so the player should have the option to change chars during dialog.

Indeed ...

On the other hand tho, no matter what group would choose ... sometimes someone is too fast, for others to react.
That is not counterargument, i agree with you.
Its only that, when i read this post, i remembered that some time ago someone suggested to use bigest modifier in party automaticly ... "as if other party member would talk" ... and i really, really, REALLY hope that is something that would never happen. :-/
Simply for the reason that (as Swen few times mentioned himself, wich gives me little hope) sometimes you dont really want to win.

@RagnarokCzD you didn’t address the issue I was trying to point out - that none of those systems would work in multiplayer. Both solutions have been used by other RPGs so they are clearly achievable (if they are achievable for BG3 only one with an insight and understanding on how BG3 works could say), but arguably they would work even worse in multiplayer than what we have right now.

I would need more than one hand to count the instances when I reloaded because I wanted to fail the dialog but won the check. Mostly because I wanted a fight, I have to admit. Strangely I never reloaded since EA release to win a failed dialog.

Indeed ... must have missed it somehow. :-/
My bad entirely.

We can split it to two separate problems ...
How to delivery other player choices ... and who should lead the conversation, if i get it corectly.

That would be poor implementation indeed ...

There would need to be some system that would allow curently active player pass conversation to someone else ...

But since our NPC companions have pre-defined characters, but our Tavs do not ...
[short offtopic]
I still wonder how playing with Origin character would lookalike, and im honestly quite pissed that Larian refused to let us test it ... i mean will i be able to play Shadowheart as Gith-loving sweetheart? And who will be in her pot during tutorial, if i will play as her? Should i take it as her pod have no significance for the story?
[/short offtopic]

I can imagine system where all people participating in conversation would get same options, each would pick one ... and leading character (aka the one who speaks in curent build) would then get up to 3 more options.

Example:
Lets use this situation!


(As conversation starts)
1) I mean no harm - I'm just looking around.
2) [PERSUATION] That ship is full of monsters. I wouldn't go near it.
3) [DECEPTION] I think that ship is an invasion force. Run while you can!
4) [INTIMIDATION] The only thing you own is your life. Leave, before i take that too.
5) Attack
6) [Tav 2] ...
7) [Tav 3] ...
8) [Tav 4] ...

Our other PC (Tav 2-4) would then pick from their own set of dialogues (dont really remember if there is any class/race specific option, but if so, they would have it obviously) ...
And those picks would show in their respective dialogue options:

(Few seconds later)
1) I mean no harm - I'm just looking around.
2) [PERSUATION] That ship is full of monsters. I wouldn't go near it.
3) [DECEPTION] I think that ship is an invasion force. Run while you can!
4) [INTIMIDATION] The only thing you own is your life. Leave, before i take that too.
5) Attack
6) [Tav 2][PERSUATION] That ship is full of monsters. I wouldn't go near it.
7) [Tav 3]Attack
8) [Tav 4]Didnt pick anything / left conversation.

Benefits of such format would be that if our Tav 3 will be murderhobbo ... and our curently speaking Tav would be for peacefull solution ... it will be Tav 3 who will be attacking those people, rather than forcing our Tav to do that for him, as they would in curent system.

Weakness is that its still our first speaker (Tav in this case) who will be deciding wich options should happen ...
Other point of criticism is then Attack or left conversation options ... bcs in theory, such options should in this particular case overwrite others and simply start fight scenario ... bcs logicaly, no matter what you say, once your party member attacks, you are in a fight.

And neither benefit, nor the weakness is fact that if Tav would pick option 6 ... and pass the speaker role to Tav 2 ... Tav 2 would then be the one who would decide ... not sure if that would cause problems, but its possible.

Depends on model ...

There is option to let RNG to deal with it, as it does in SW:tOR ... but personaly i hate that ... i like to have control over faith of my character and nothing pisses me off more than when my lawfull good Jedi is forced to helplessly watch murder in front of him. :-/
(Yeah, same situation as there is with Kagha and her sneak. And no i will never stop complaining about it, til Larian adds option for our character to at least make some effort to prevent it, like lean forward hopelessly trying to catch the snake.)

I heared about rock/scisors/paper system ... i like that much more!
Yes, im aware that there is risk of draw, but you have full control over your character, at least if you have murderhobbo in your party you can only blame yourself to pick wrong option.
And after all there is nothing easier than set RNG after 3 draws in row. Or some simmilar failsafe.

Then there is that model Larian (as it seems in that video) decided to use ...
The person who starts talking is the person who is deciding. Easy, effective, with fresh scent of lemons.
Add option to pass that to other party members and i think we have good enough system.

---

There is one problem that i realized just now, and that is passive checks ...
If our Tav 2 will pass History check, and other fails ... there should be some way for him to tell the others ... i mean, yeah i can imagine Narator talking to everyone, since we have "coveniently connected minds" ...
But it feels little cheap, doesnt it? :-/

When playing D&D on tabletop, if a character is nearby the conversation or scene that is happening, they can indeed interfere and take the direction of the situation regardless of who started the dialogue. In the game, I understand the negative implications of letting everyone act freely on top of each other. We always have to keep in mind that having a smart ass/overeager player in the party can compromise gameplay and even the interest of a new player.

For me, the ideal would be: whoever started the dialogue could "pass" the scene to a companion who is within range.

From the perspective of development and implementation of mechanics, I wonder if it's really that difficult to allow players to switch who is in the conversation?

> But do we have ANY WORD on options for switching out characters for dialogue and using the best character in the party for skillchecks?

What, this still isn't possible? This was requested (and for good reason) on day 1 the beta launched!

I want to say I have seen this mechanic in a party based CRPG. Wasn't it Storm of Zehir (Neverwinter Nights 2 expansion)? Or was it something else?