So Minsc is a character from comic books also based in Baldur's Gate, but not really tied into the "lore" of the video games? I actually remember listening to some lore recap on YouTube going over both games, and I don't remember him popping actually. Here's the review my phone's feed threw at me. It's from ArsTechnica, which I don't regularly read.
Minsc debuted in the first Baldur's Gate game, but neither he nor any of the other potential party members (of which there were many) had any actual relevance to the plot. Baldur's Gate 2 improved things to some extent, but the story was still seriously all about your character and everyone else mostly just had a few side quests that their presence triggered.
This is a silly question, but other than stumbling across it and being the ones to deal with it, how many PC's in regular D&D play have 'relevance to the plot?' I mean there are campaigns where every character is tied directly to the main plot somehow but am pretty sure such campaigns are the exceptions, not the rule.
Even in literature, as far back as you want to go, this is typically so. The Odyssey was the voyage of Odysseus. The story of Jason and the Argonauts is not normally referred to as the story of the Argonauts, featuring Jason. Other characters had important roles but more in terms of being there and being useful than 'tied in with the plot.' The Iliad was more of a true ensemble with a great number of heroes on both sides of the war being directly plot relevant, but again an exception.
Even look at more modern groups such as the Avengers. Most of the team are there at any given time because they are heroes sworn to protect the world, not because the immediate danger is something directly tied to themselves as individuals.
Whatever essential claims you're trying to make about character and setting and plot relationships in heroic narratives on the western railroad from Ancient Greece to contemporary superheroes aside, 6th was offering background on the Baldur's Gate franchise to help me see if some key "setting" characters were integral to the old BG games and were lacking in the new game. It doesn't seem to be the case. Reviews of the game's early release, seem more positive (accepting it as an early release) than not. It seems the most critical reviews come from reviewers with some investment in BG1+2, and I was trying to determine what the lack may be other than another posters dismissal of that perspective as too nostalgia driven by the older games.
World immersion's important in a lot of modern video games.
So Minsc is a character from comic books also based in Baldur's Gate, but not really tied into the "lore" of the video games? I actually remember listening to some lore recap on YouTube going over both games, and I don't remember him popping actually. Here's the review my phone's feed threw at me. It's from ArsTechnica, which I don't regularly read.
Minsc debuted in the first Baldur's Gate game, but neither he nor any of the other potential party members (of which there were many) had any actual relevance to the plot. Baldur's Gate 2 improved things to some extent, but the story was still seriously all about your character and everyone else mostly just had a few side quests that their presence triggered.
Thanks for the background. Like I said, the review I linked, and a few others I've read seemed to be disappointed on the game not feeling like a "return" to the world in the first two games. Moreover, while being visually striking, something about the way the parties are characterized seemed "off" to the reviewers, though I understand the reason behind those dynamics may be a result of the alignment options available in pre-release and how well they "mesh". That said there are also a lot of positive reviews to delve into too.
So Minsc is a character from comic books also based in Baldur's Gate, but not really tied into the "lore" of the video games? I actually remember listening to some lore recap on YouTube going over both games, and I don't remember him popping actually. Here's the review my phone's feed threw at me. It's from ArsTechnica, which I don't regularly read.
Minsc debuted in the first Baldur's Gate game, but neither he nor any of the other potential party members (of which there were many) had any actual relevance to the plot. Baldur's Gate 2 improved things to some extent, but the story was still seriously all about your character and everyone else mostly just had a few side quests that their presence triggered.
This is a silly question, but other than stumbling across it and being the ones to deal with it, how many PC's in regular D&D play have 'relevance to the plot?' I mean there are campaigns where every character is tied directly to the main plot somehow but am pretty sure such campaigns are the exceptions, not the rule.
Basically it's the difference of "what happens if I replace this character with any other character?" The answer in Baldur's Gate is "nothing." Your party composition is not relevant to the story because they never interact with the story. By comparison, in Planescape: Torment, there was substantially more impact- NPCs would react to the fact that you had Fall From Grace with you, or Morte would get into discussions with Annah that didn't involve your character. You actually miss out on quite a bit of content if you go for a solo run.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Whatever essential claims you're trying to make about character and setting and plot relationships in heroic narratives on the western railroad from Ancient Greece to contemporary superheroes aside, 6th was offering background on the Baldur's Gate franchise to help me see if some key "setting" characters were integral to the old BG games and were lacking in the new game. It doesn't seem to be the case. Reviews of the game's early release, seem more positive (accepting it as an early release) than not. It seems the most critical reviews come from reviewers with some investment in BG1+2, and I was trying to determine what the lack may be other than another posters dismissal of that perspective as too nostalgia driven by the older games.
World immersion's important in a lot of modern video games.
Thanks for the background. Like I said, the review I linked, and a few others I've read seemed to be disappointed on the game not feeling like a "return" to the world in the first two games. Moreover, while being visually striking, something about the way the parties are characterized seemed "off" to the reviewers, though I understand the reason behind those dynamics may be a result of the alignment options available in pre-release and how well they "mesh". That said there are also a lot of positive reviews to delve into too.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Basically it's the difference of "what happens if I replace this character with any other character?" The answer in Baldur's Gate is "nothing." Your party composition is not relevant to the story because they never interact with the story. By comparison, in Planescape: Torment, there was substantially more impact- NPCs would react to the fact that you had Fall From Grace with you, or Morte would get into discussions with Annah that didn't involve your character. You actually miss out on quite a bit of content if you go for a solo run.
Find your own truth, choose your enemies carefully, and never deal with a dragon.
"Canon" is what's factual to D&D lore. "Cannon" is what you're going to be shot with if you keep getting the word wrong.