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

[a.out]

Damn .. didn't want to give DOS haters a platform here ... I love DOS and I think larian would be absolutely stupid to not take a good chunk of stuff that worked in DOS and put it back into BG3 ...

[Dragon Master]

引用自 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.

Tags is nothing more than Larian letting players know where the dialogue option is coming from. Games previous to them have also had exclusive dialogue options. Dragon Age: Origins and Inquisition had racial tags, not called tags. All the Dragon Age games had class specific dialogue, especially for mages.

Fallout had dialogue based on attributes and stats, with unique dialogue for absolute idiots with a low intelligence.

Acting like it’s new or egregious is a logical fallacy. All Larian did in DoS and DoS2 was give it an official name and showcase the influence in brackets during dialogue.

[Hobocop]

引用自 Dragon Master：

引用自 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.

Tags is nothing more than Larian letting players know where the dialogue option is coming from. Games previous to them have also had exclusive dialogue options. Dragon Age: Origins and Inquisition had racial tags, not called tags. All the Dragon Age games had class specific dialogue, especially for mages.

Fallout had dialogue based on attributes and stats, with unique dialogue for absolute idiots with a low intelligence.

Acting like it’s new or egregious is a logical fallacy. All Larian did in DoS and DoS2 was give it an official name and showcase the influence in brackets during dialogue.

For a more recent example, the first Pillars game had lots of dialogue tags based on race, class, background, and if your class supported it, deity.

[功夫kappa]

Pillars isn't D&D.

I am not saying that Tags are an inherently bad thing, as you guys keep trying to argue.

I am saying that the use of Tags in BG3 is one more indication that this is just DOS: Forgotten Realms.

[Senki]

引用自 功夫kappa：

Pillars isn't D&D.

I am not saying that Tags are an inherently bad thing, as you guys keep trying to argue.

I am saying that the use of Tags in BG3 is one more indication that this is just DOS: Forgotten Realms.

So if they call them tags then its a DOS clone but if they call it background or whatever then it's DnD even though they do exactly the same thing.

Yeah makes total sense dude you're definitely not delusional.

[Hobocop]

引用自 Senki：

引用自 功夫kappa：

Pillars isn't D&D.

I am not saying that Tags are an inherently bad thing, as you guys keep trying to argue.

I am saying that the use of Tags in BG3 is one more indication that this is just DOS: Forgotten Realms.

So if they call them tags then its a DOS clone but if they call it background or whatever then it's DnD even though they do exactly the same thing.

Yeah makes total sense dude you're definitely not delusional.

Nevermind the fact that both Neverwinter Nights games did exactly this. So the weakass argument that it isn't D&D falls flat, and the concept is system agnostic to begin with.

[Jaxom]

引用自 功夫kappa：

Pillars isn't D&D.

I am not saying that Tags are an inherently bad thing, as you guys keep trying to argue.

I am saying that the use of Tags in BG3 is one more indication that this is just DOS: Forgotten Realms.

Delusional is the only word I can think of. How do you not get what everyone has been posting. DOS didn't invent tags. It's just how they organized the idea. Tags are nothing new.

[Senki]

引用自 Jaxom：

引用自 功夫kappa：

Pillars isn't D&D.

I am not saying that Tags are an inherently bad thing, as you guys keep trying to argue.

I am saying that the use of Tags in BG3 is one more indication that this is just DOS: Forgotten Realms.

Delusional is the only word I can think of. How do you not get what everyone has been posting. DOS didn't invent tags. It's just how they organized the idea. Tags are nothing new.

By his logic divinity invented rogues mages and fighters so if baldurs gate will have that then its a dos clone.

[Hylian Ticipated]

引用自 Senki：

引用自 Jaxom：

Delusional is the only word I can think of. How do you not get what everyone has been posting. DOS didn't invent tags. It's just how they organized the idea. Tags are nothing new.

By his logic divinity invented rogues mages and fighters so if baldurs gate will have that then its a dos clone.

I can switch between characters even during a dialogue sequence. BG3 is ruined :( :( :(((

[Coldhands]

引用自 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.

So, how would you handle 5e style backgrounds, as well as content that reacts to race and class choice, in BG3 such that they weren't similar to DOS style tags?

[功夫kappa]

引用自 Coldhands：

So, how would you handle 5e style backgrounds, as well as content that reacts to race and class choice, in BG3 such that they weren't similar to DOS style tags?

Content that reacts to race/class doesn't need further explicit tags, that's being reductive.

As for "background/flaw/etc" I wouldn't use those in a video game. I would leave it ambiguous, and have it relate to the story being told.

Gorian's Ward had a background as a character, but it was presented in a way that allowed you still to have your own reactions to the events that followed.

[Jaxom]

引用自 功夫kappa：

引用自 Coldhands：

So, how would you handle 5e style backgrounds, as well as content that reacts to race and class choice, in BG3 such that they weren't similar to DOS style tags?

Content that reacts to race/class doesn't need further explicit tags, that's being reductive.

As for "background/flaw/etc" I wouldn't use those in a video game. I would leave it ambiguous, and have it relate to the story being told.

Gorian's Ward had a background as a character, but it was presented in a way that allowed you still to have your own reactions to the events that followed.

What was his background if you take out his race/class and male/female and the fact that he didn't know his parents?

[Hobocop]

So, the solution is to completely ignore the distinct mechanical and narrative benefits of 5e Backgrounds because it wasn't included in the prior games/AD&D2e.

Yeah, that's not going to happen.

[Dragon Master]

引用自 功夫kappa：

引用自 Coldhands：

So, how would you handle 5e style backgrounds, as well as content that reacts to race and class choice, in BG3 such that they weren't similar to DOS style tags?

Content that reacts to race/class doesn't need further explicit tags, that's being reductive.

As for "background/flaw/etc" I wouldn't use those in a video game. I would leave it ambiguous, and have it relate to the story being told.

Gorian's Ward had a background as a character, but it was presented in a way that allowed you still to have your own reactions to the events that followed.

And our characters, based on what was shown in the recent gameplay reveals, also can react how we choose.

Gorion's Ward had no choice. Their background was chosen for them. They are the demi-god child of the God of Murder. They were raised by a good man named Gorion, in Candlekeep. They were in Candlekeep for 20 years and only left Candlekeep when Gorion got warned that you were in danger.

The player has absolutely no say in their character's background but they do have a say in gender, alignment and class.

From what I can tell you are objecting to having as many more options that can feasibly be offered to players because it might be called "tags" that give you additional dialogue options.

[Jaxom]

引用自 Dragon Master：

引用自 功夫kappa：

Content that reacts to race/class doesn't need further explicit tags, that's being reductive.

As for "background/flaw/etc" I wouldn't use those in a video game. I would leave it ambiguous, and have it relate to the story being told.

Gorian's Ward had a background as a character, but it was presented in a way that allowed you still to have your own reactions to the events that followed.

And our characters, based on what was shown in the recent gameplay reveals, also can react how we choose.

Gorion's Ward had no choice. Their background was chosen for them. They are the demi-god child of the God of Murder. They were raised by a good man named Gorion, in Candlekeep. They were in Candlekeep for 20 years and only left Candlekeep when Gorion got warned that you were in danger.

The player has absolutely no say in their character's background but they do have a say in gender, alignment and class.

From what I can tell you are objecting to having more as many options that can feasibly be offered to players because it might be called "tags" that give you additional dialogue options.

This 10/10