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

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?