Are there tags in BG 3

[a.out]

The way they were designed in Divinity is quite annoying to say the least. You either have Mystic/Scholar or you have a bunch completely and utterly useless tags. What's the point of [BARBARIAN] for example ? Some people get stuck at certain quests because they don't have Scholar. The witch brew needs a combination of Mystic/Scholar. Why ? Why if there is not an equal amount of quests needing OTHER tags. It's always the same. Even the arguably most fun dialog in the game (heads on sticks) can be done without [JESTER].

Go Scholar or go home. I hate it. Please don't do the same ♥♥♥♥ in BG3. Thank you <3

[Oven]

Originally posted by 功夫kappa:

Originally posted by Oven:

Well actually you don't have to use those tables exactly for your character. Those are just there to give an idea of the background or how that particular character design works. You're completely free to create your own flaws and traits as those are there to keep your character consistent

That's my point.

"Tags" have nothing to do with D&D. They are not a D&D concept, nor a D&D mechanic.

"Tags" are purely a contrivance from the DOS engine, and if they carry over to BG3 it will be more evidence that this game is just a DOS clone.

Tags are just extra dialogue from your characters history, hell I would argue that tags are more fitting to DnD than DOS. When talking to a harbor master with the sailor background you should have dialogue that reflects on that character's history as a sailor. When talking to a scholar you should be able to have specific dialogue with them as a sage, it makes things more immersive. Though I can understand why you wouldn't want it since it changes with the Baldur's Gate identity, I think this can be an instance where we should welcome the change as is just adds more to the story and characters

[功夫kappa]

How is having your background handed to you more fitting for a D&D character?

[Oven]

Originally posted by 功夫kappa:

How is having your background handed to you more fitting for a D&D character?

But its not really handed to you, they catch all of the usual dnd backstories. I create a backstory or general concept for my character and I pick a fitting background that goes along with it. If its more niche then that the system allows you to create your own background.

[功夫kappa]

if the answers are predetermined based upon the tags you chose, which are entirely independent of actual character motivation, then they are being handed to you.

you did not choose them. you did not come up with the motivations or the story. you are accepting an origin story for your own character.

that is not D&D, unless all you play are the boxed sets with pregen characters.

[Hobocop]

It's a non-issue. 'Tags' have existed conceptually in prior D&D titles, unless certain people really want to start denying that the player got special dialogues based on your choice of race, class, and alignment. It's quite literally the same exact mechanic, and a necessary concession in an environment comprised entirely of preset content.

[Midnight]

Originally posted by 功夫kappa:

if the answers are predetermined based upon the tags you chose, which are entirely independent of actual character motivation, then they are being handed to you.

you did not choose them. you did not come up with the motivations or the story. you are accepting an origin story for your own character.

that is not D&D, unless all you play are the boxed sets with pregen characters.

Sadly the game doesn't have a general AI DM who could listen to players directly and react to their actions in real time.

I assume if Larian did have that they'd be too busy taking over the world.

Tags are an abstraction of character motivation and background. There's only so many paths developers can write in. Still having tags along with other abstractions like skill checks is better than not having them. Some being used more than others is a problem with balance and writing not with the very concept of tags.

[TheLightningYu | Mike]

Originally posted by 功夫kappa:

Originally posted by Jaxom:

This is wrong.

DnD has always used "Tags". An 5E uses even more.

we used to call it imagination and writing, when we made our characters. we didn't use tags or tables to tell us how our character felt.

But that's where your Logic is flawed. You can't implement this thing in a CRPG because a Videogame can't like a Gamemaster adapt to your writing. That's why "Tags" are such a fitting concept because it is the compromise / solution between having something where you can give your character more personality/background and dialogue options, similiar like a gamemaster would adapt to your Character and take your characters traits and personality into account while letting NPCs talk to you and stuff, and not breaking the Game to a mess storywise, because it's not possible to create a story which tells itself (AI generated) based on your own personal writing of the Characters.

But seeing your comments in other topics for me it rather reads like you don't care about what makes sense or what fits into BG / DnD, but moreover hate for the sake of hating because Larian creates the game, and not exactly how you want it to be.

/edit:

Originally posted by Midnight:

Originally posted by 功夫kappa:

if the answers are predetermined based upon the tags you chose, which are entirely independent of actual character motivation, then they are being handed to you.

you did not choose them. you did not come up with the motivations or the story. you are accepting an origin story for your own character.

that is not D&D, unless all you play are the boxed sets with pregen characters.

Sadly the game doesn't have a general AI DM who could listen to players directly and react to their actions in real time.

I assume if Larian did have that they'd be too busy taking over the world.

Tags are an abstraction of character motivation and background. There's only so many paths developers can write in. Still having tags along with other abstractions like skill checks is better than not having them. Some being used more than others is a problem with balance and writing not with the very concept of tags.

^- This so much.

[a.out]

Well, let's just hope they distribute them better this time around ...My concern is not about tags themselves but the way they are implemented in DOS2. Completely one sided and uninspired.

[功夫kappa]

Originally posted by TheLightningYu:

Originally posted by 功夫kappa:

we used to call it imagination and writing, when we made our characters. we didn't use tags or tables to tell us how our character felt.

But that's where your Logic is flawed. You can't implement this thing in a CRPG because a Videogame can't like a Gamemaster adapt to your writing. That's why "Tags" are such a fitting concept because it is the compromise / solution between having something where you can give your character more personality/background and dialogue options, similiar like a gamemaster would adapt to your Character and take your characters traits and personality into account while letting NPCs talk to you and stuff, and not breaking the Game to a mess storywise, because it's not possible to create a story which tells itself (AI generated) based on your own personal writing of the Characters.

But seeing your comments in other topics for me it rather reads like you don't care about what makes sense or what fits into BG / DnD, but moreover hate for the sake of hating because Larian creates the game, and not exactly how you want it to be.

/edit:

Originally posted by Midnight:

Sadly the game doesn't have a general AI DM who could listen to players directly and react to their actions in real time.

I assume if Larian did have that they'd be too busy taking over the world.

Tags are an abstraction of character motivation and background. There's only so many paths developers can write in. Still having tags along with other abstractions like skill checks is better than not having them. Some being used more than others is a problem with balance and writing not with the very concept of tags.

^- This so much.

None of that is an excuse for blatantly copying a mechanic from DOS to inject in D&D when they are, by their own words, trying to make it so people don't confuse the two games.

My point isn't about how to play games or how to make characters, people, it's about the glaring similarities between DOS and BG3, and about the Larian brigade's blind acceptance of these things.

Explicitly keeping "Tags" as part of character creation is a clear indication that this is just DOS with a Forgotten Realms skin, and neither a true D&D nor a worthy BG title.

[Dragon Master]

If I'm a DM running a table at a D&D game, I would most definitely expect people to make unique dialogue options for their characters based on background, race, alignment and backstory.

That qualifies as tags in this regard.

[功夫kappa]

No, it doesn't, and you're purposefully being disingenuous about the point I am making, which remains:

If "Tags" exist in BG3, it is evidence that this is just a DOS clone.

You can keep trying to modify D&D to suit tags all you want, but that's still just being DOS: Forgotten Realms.

[Hobocop]

Disingenuous, they say.

While continuing to fail to acknowledge that other cRPGs have used tags before D:OS2.

[Senki]

If you think tags predetermine your answers in DOS then you never played the game, it's just an EXTRA option you can choose,you can still pick other answers that have nothing to do with your tag.

You call this a divnity clone but all you seem to want is a baldurs gate clone with literally no new features which would be a bad sequel.

Yeah let's make the devs use decades old graphics and mechanics just to satisfy the people's nostalgia.

[Hylian Ticipated]

Originally posted by 功夫kappa:

No, it doesn't, and you're purposefully being disingenuous about the point I am making, which remains:

If "Tags" exist in BG3, it is evidence that this is just a DOS clone.

You can keep trying to modify D&D to suit tags all you want, but that's still just being DOS: Forgotten Realms.

You're cherry-picking one small feature that's not even exclusive to Larian games and continue to reach. You're the one who keeps trying, tbh. I bet if any another developer has shown the same thing you'd probably praise them for revitalizing the franchise and even "taking a page from Larian's book". Any similarities is not the end all/be all for being a clone.

[功夫kappa]

I am not "cherry picking", I am pointing out one more thing that would indicate this.

Keeping "Tags" from the DOS engine would be one more indication that this is just DOS: Forgotten Realms.