I didnt quite understood the poll, but i want to have a new story with some relation to the old story, recurring objects, name references etc, maybe even characters. So like we meet Imoen as a grand-whatever to talk about stuff.
Basically the same way iwd2 did it, nwn2, as well as bg2 in regard to bg1 NPC.
I'm not sure how they would do it, but i would like a bg3 related somehow to the Throne of Bhaal story, even if it is just indirectly.
There could be some story that follows from either whatever became of Bhaal's essence in the planes or CHARNAME.
But bear in mind that Philip is saying that this will be set more than a century after ToB. And by the release of BG3 (if there is one), there may even be a new edition of the official FR Campaign Setting. So the story could be set even farther into the future than the current FR Campaign setting (which is now over 100 years after the Bhaalspawn War). Just as with the current DnD ruleset at that time, I would think WotC will also want BG3's story to be current and consistent with its other related products.
Building a stroy around the BG series protagonist who chose godhood is kind of problematic for a number of reasons. Mainly (s)he is just too high level. And stripping the character back down to L1 would feel contrived. Also, if (s)he chose to be a mortal then the race makes a difference to whether the character could even be alive.
A descendant of CHARNAME who has the Bhaal essence is certainly a possibility, though.
And perhaps Bhaal's essence itself reemerging somehow to again seek resurrection could be developed into a good plotline. (Again, this is set at least over a century in the future, if not farther.)
Not that I'm advocating for any of those. But that's what I envision from the poll option "I would like Baldur's Gate 3 to continue the story of Throne of Bhaal, but with a NEW player character."
I loved the Bhaal-saga, from the beginning the to the end, but I voted for a new start. Besides the obvious Godhood problems and all, everyone is too familiar with the Bhaalspawn story. It wouldn't have a lot of mystery left to it and I think it would handicap the game a lot to lose that aspect. Though acknowledging the previous titles in some way would be an honourable thing to do.
I have no problem in giving Beamdog an opportunity to create it's own story in Faerun and not be too tied to the past. Just make it weird.
I think that if the game is called Baldur's Gate 3 then it's a continuation of the Bhaalspawn's story. It doesn't have to be directly after Throne of Bhaal or a direct continuation of the story (I have to wonder what there is to continue of the ToB story).
Personally I wouldn't mind it if they dealt with the aftermath of ToB and what it meant for the characters involved, but then quickly moved into an all new adventure involving your player character. I'm not sure if it should ultimately be unrelated to being the Bhaalspawn or if there could be one last aspect to explore in the saga.
Maybe they could spin a story out of the scene after BG2 SoA where the Bhaal conspirators talk about plans for the Bhaalspawn (I'm not sure if this has ever definitively answered). Perhaps there were other Bhaal worshippers other than Melissan who had a plan for the Bhaalspawn before she tried to take everything for herself? Either that or your player character and friends can stop an antagonist that's a larger threat but not related to the Bhaalspawn storyline.
Though if there were to be a third full game that had a new protagonist and an unrelated story, but set in the same world then in my mind it's more of a spin-off. I'm not entirely against this idea, but just don't call it Baldur's Gate 3 and if it is to be in the same world, but unrelated to the previous story then I'd at least like significant cameos from the previous games and not like BG1 cameos in BG2.
About the Bhaalspawn accepting Godhood. I don't think that it necessarily has to break the game. By the end of ToB you have a high level. Who's to say that BG3 couldn't conceivably throw up enemies that are a challenge? Plus you could just have the condition that outside of the Pocket Plane or in mortal/humanoid form you were less powerful (but still pretty powerful). Maybe BG3 could have another god as an antagonist, such as Cyric who sees you as a threat.
Though arguably it's probably for the best if BG3 assumed your Bhaalspawn refused Godhood.
I kinda fancy the thought of BG3 being in a retrospective view. Start with a new character but the story progresses along side the main story of BG1 and/or BG2 in a way. Meaning that you might bump into "your former self", ofc not heavily involved in the story but just so you can gaze at your previous awesomeness. It will be like walking in your own footsteps except your walking alongside. Just some immediate thoughts from the top of my head.
"I would like Baldur's Gate 3 to continue the story of Throne of Bhaal, but with a NEW player character." This option was the obvious to me, yet I choosed another. Not a mistake, why: Because what I would like is references to throne of bhaal, lore and maybe some returns but not a direct follow up. That would actually be hard since 100 years passed.
About the rules, yes it is a little sad that my fav second edition wont be used anymore, but since I knew that already I guess I can accept that BG3 will have any new rules, just hope they don't get worse.
A new story would be great. Bhaalspawn stuff is nice and all, but it's old hat and dragging it out anymore is unnecessary. If BG3 ever did exist, I'd love it to have references to the past games' events and characters. The main char being a descendant of one of the previous characters (not necessarily CHARNAME even) would be interesting too.
Given that BG 3 has to follow the CURRENT forgotten realms history, I don't see much of a point anymore to even try and continue with anything from BG 1 & 2 seeing how everyone from them is dead, including ALL the baalspawn, I also foresee a further changing of history when 5e (D&D Next) comes out.
I realize I chose the wrong one. I want the Bhaalspawn stuff to continue and I want CHARNAME to play a cameo as the Lord of Murder (depending on how you won ToB he/she will be an evil or good one).
But I don't think you can make a Baldur's Gate 3 about CHARNAME, he's the Lord of Murder now. I want the Bhaalspawn story to continue with a new character and for CHARNAME to be a featured part.
I realize I chose the wrong one. I want the Bhaalspawn stuff to continue and I want CHARNAME to play a cameo as the Lord of Murder (depending on how you won ToB he/she will be an evil or good one).
But I don't think you can make a Baldur's Gate 3 about CHARNAME, he's the Lord of Murder now. I want the Bhaalspawn story to continue with a new character .
Yeah, but whose CHARNAME? Abdel Adrian (the protagonist of the BG series novelizations)? (I'm being facetious. ;p)
I guess theoretically devs could provide the means to import your CHARNAME's .cre file from BG2:EE. But understand that's between two different games (and probably two different engines). It's not going to happen...
If they do end up using the same enhanced Infinity engine for BG3 (which we have been told not to expect), then this would be a more feasible option, actually.
I like the idea of a DnD with a new setting, character and story but my main worry is the last few times that was done we got icewind dale's and Neverwinter Nights(and to an extent dragon age...) which certainly filled a gap but felt nowhere near as inspired or vivid as the Bhallspwan saga. I'm afraid moving away from that story continuity might create something rather alien to the rest of the series.
That's my thoughts, I would rather see them attempt something challenging(reviving the Bhallspawn saga) and hopefully suprise us with something many think couldn't be done than make something totally new from scratch. I'd be willing to by that game if they released it separately but not as a Baldur's Gate. Either be true to the series or let it die.
If I ever get rich, consider me the biggest money provider for BG3. Just build a 2 tons pure golden statue in front of your offices though
I'd like it to continue ToB's story, but with an entirely new newbie, possibly son or daughter of Noober himself. "You were born from a humble family. Your father Noober was the local annoyance. Your mother Noober was... the local annoyance."
I'll just offer up a little quote from Neil Gaiman's "Sandman":
"All Bette's stories have happy endings. That's because she knows where to stop. She's realized the real problem with stories - if you keep them going long enough, they always end in death."
The Bhaalspawn saga was an excellent story that reached its natural conclusion. In an industry that's positively overflowing with sub-par "let's keep this series going a little more, now what's the story again?" games, do we really need another? Isn't part of D&D's charm the idea that you can have different adventures and tell different stories in the same familiar lands? Don't you want to experience that same feeling you felt in BG1, fresh out of Candlekeep with no idea of the epic tale you were about to begin?
I'll just offer up a little quote from Neil Gaiman's "Sandman":
"All Bette's stories have happy endings. That's because she knows where to stop. She's realized the real problem with stories - if you keep them going long enough, they always end in death."
The Bhaalspawn saga was an excellent story that reached its natural conclusion. In an industry that's positively overflowing with sub-par "let's keep this series going a little more, now what's the story again?" games, do we really need another? Isn't part of D&D's charm the idea that you can have different adventures and tell different stories in the same familiar lands? Don't you want to experience that same feeling you felt in BG1, fresh out of Candlekeep with no idea of the epic tale you were about to begin?
Though the 'not knowing when to stop' argument is a decent one, I'm not so sure myself if ToB was the natural conclusion. As fun as I found ToB, I was always disappointed that it wasn't an entire separate game, just an expansion pack. I felt like it needed more time to tell that story.
Until ToB came about I was under the impression that they would close the story with BG3 (which I think was the original plan, but correct me if I'm wrong). Plus was the Bhaal priests conspirators scene ever definitively answered or is that still open to fan debates?
I also didn't find Melissan as compelling as Irenicus or Sarevok (though I didn't hate her either). To me a BG3 could be a chance to give real closure to your character. I felt that the game didn't really do that well enough for me (though I enjoyed the companion epilogues for the most part).
Plus I just couldn't see a new game with a different story and protagonist unrelated to the Bhaalspawn as Baldur's Gate 3. To me it would be a new series or a spin-off. Like a James Bond film that centres around a side character and James doesn't feature.
Though don't get me wrong. I'd still play the game if it were good, it played in a similar style and the story was compelling. I'd just prefer another story with the Bhaalspawn or if they did have to go in another direction entirely, not to call the game BG3. Just my take on it.
Though the 'not knowing when to stop' argument is a decent one, I'm not so sure myself if ToB was the natural conclusion. As fun as I found ToB, I was always disappointed that it wasn't an entire separate game, just an expansion pack. I felt like it needed more time to tell that story.
It's one thing to say you dislike the conclusion; it's another to say it's no conclusion at all. Whatever your feelings on Amelyssan and the plot of ToB, the fact is that by the end of chapter 9, the Bhaalspawn saga is effectively over: the Five are destroyed, Amelyssan's plan is thwarted, Imoen is purged of the taint and your PC either ascends into divinity or gives up Bhaal's power for good. That's how the story ends.
Now, I'm sure it's possible to invent some loose thread that could serve as the starting point for another extension of the story, but... okay, this is what I don't understand. The fact that BG1, BG2 and ToB have a continuous storyline is less a matter of tradition and more a matter of coincidence. Look at the other game series set in the same world: "Icewind Dale" isn't character-centric at all, and if you take all the expansions into account then "Neverwinter Nights" has at least four canonical protagonists (ie: the PC in NWN1, the PC in SoU/HotU, the PC in NWN2/MotB and the PC in SoZ are all strongly implied to be different people) and minimal connections between the various storylines. The BG trilogy, as it currently stands, is the exception, not the rule. Why is it suddenly so important for direct continuity to be a thing? Are there no other stories to be told about the Sword Coast?
I'm not saying it's not a conclusion at all, just that not everyone will view it as the most fitting. I personally would like one last game as a send off to that character and story.
I'll be honest. I haven't played all of those games. I'm more used to series having continuity with the previous story, though I'm sure I've probably experienced some who don't outside of those you mention. I think it's a little strong to say that BG followed the same protagonist by coincidence, they clearly had an idea they were carry the story forward over at least one sequel. Though BG may be the exception when view amongst similar games in different series, as it stands the Baldur's Gate series has followed the Bhaalspawn. It isn't a sudden interest in continuing the Bhaalspawn story, that's my personal preference that I've had since I completed ToB. I'm not denying there are other stories in the Sword Coast, but I feel that in light of the Baldur's Gate series itself as it stands (which has been around a decade now) that would feel more like a spin-off. Like I've said before, I'm not completely against that, but I don't think that should be Baldur's Gate 3.
Prequel. Gorion can be a party member. End with saving CHARNAME and not Sarevok. Introduce two young half elves to each other. (Khalid and Jaheira) and maybe have duke Eltan in the party! An adventure 20 years previous would rock. It could all still happen in Baldur's Gate but include the lands north. Also the towns could be the same size or bigger but sickness and monsters keep down population so they haven't grown 20 years later. It is a medieval fantasy after all. You could make the high hedge, lathanders temple and Gnoll stronghold character strongholds. Also cloak wood has a ranger cabin and a Druid tree. It is so perfect! I would make Melisan your little sister who gets involved and fools her big brother or sister. She could even be responsible for you not being able to save more children. Man I wish I had time and know how to make mods. There is too much potential here to squander it.
RedGuard is right. BG is more book than video game and fantasy books go in character centered trilogies (well plot focused but using the same characters)
I would personally prefer to forget Baldur's Gate 1+ 2 in a sequel, reboot the series, new character, back to level 1, killing goblins and doing fetch quests from pubs.
Drop the name Baldur's Gate and set it somewhere else, there's plenty of other cities/ cultures far away from the Sword Coast that id rather see in a new game.
Speaking purely for myself, I'd prefer a new character continuing the ToB storyline. It would be difficult to continue the storyline with CHARNAME1 given how powerful they are, as well as choices made during the game.
Now, if it were a child of charname, or the teleporting bhaalspawn who made it out of saradush for example, and who's essence would not have been culled at the end of ToB, then that gives you room to work with.
For sure if it's going to carry the BG title, I'd want it to have direct correlation to the saga, not just be a nice game with a BG banner over it for show. To play a new game with the new ruleset would really require a new character, plus the ToB ending was more than a little decisive- and really... it's been a decade now. Time to let that CHARNAME go. Their work is done.
But I'd want to see all sorts of repercussions from the events of the first two games, BG1 and BG2 harkenings and story links, a Bhaalspawn element, similar humor and inventiveness, some smattering of the same creatures, xvarts (even female ones), maybe surprise returns to the same areas that now look different, lots of "100 yrs later" scenes, and a main plot that somehow derives from CHARNAME's actions or experiences in both games. None of it would have to be exclusively nostalgia, but, say, the Carbos-Shank reunion in Athkatla- a fun encounter in itself, but way funnier if you remember them from Candlekeep. Plus all the NPCs from BG1 that get their cameos in BG2. Things like that make a BG3 grippingly intriguing to consider. Something just pulled out of a hat and topped with a BG cherry... not so intriguing...
Comments
Basically the same way iwd2 did it, nwn2, as well as bg2 in regard to bg1 NPC.
But bear in mind that Philip is saying that this will be set more than a century after ToB. And by the release of BG3 (if there is one), there may even be a new edition of the official FR Campaign Setting. So the story could be set even farther into the future than the current FR Campaign setting (which is now over 100 years after the Bhaalspawn War). Just as with the current DnD ruleset at that time, I would think WotC will also want BG3's story to be current and consistent with its other related products.
Building a stroy around the BG series protagonist who chose godhood is kind of problematic for a number of reasons. Mainly (s)he is just too high level. And stripping the character back down to L1 would feel contrived. Also, if (s)he chose to be a mortal then the race makes a difference to whether the character could even be alive.
A descendant of CHARNAME who has the Bhaal essence is certainly a possibility, though.
And perhaps Bhaal's essence itself reemerging somehow to again seek resurrection could be developed into a good plotline. (Again, this is set at least over a century in the future, if not farther.)
Not that I'm advocating for any of those. But that's what I envision from the poll option "I would like Baldur's Gate 3 to continue the story of Throne of Bhaal, but with a NEW player character."
CHARNAME choosing mortality is easier to fit in the Realmslore.
I loved the Bhaal-saga, from the beginning the to the end, but I voted for a new start. Besides the obvious Godhood problems and all, everyone is too familiar with the Bhaalspawn story. It wouldn't have a lot of mystery left to it and I think it would handicap the game a lot to lose that aspect. Though acknowledging the previous titles in some way would be an honourable thing to do.
I have no problem in giving Beamdog an opportunity to create it's own story in Faerun and not be too tied to the past. Just make it weird.
Personally I wouldn't mind it if they dealt with the aftermath of ToB and what it meant for the characters involved, but then quickly moved into an all new adventure involving your player character. I'm not sure if it should ultimately be unrelated to being the Bhaalspawn or if there could be one last aspect to explore in the saga.
Maybe they could spin a story out of the scene after BG2 SoA where the Bhaal conspirators talk about plans for the Bhaalspawn (I'm not sure if this has ever definitively answered). Perhaps there were other Bhaal worshippers other than Melissan who had a plan for the Bhaalspawn before she tried to take everything for herself? Either that or your player character and friends can stop an antagonist that's a larger threat but not related to the Bhaalspawn storyline.
Though if there were to be a third full game that had a new protagonist and an unrelated story, but set in the same world then in my mind it's more of a spin-off. I'm not entirely against this idea, but just don't call it Baldur's Gate 3 and if it is to be in the same world, but unrelated to the previous story then I'd at least like significant cameos from the previous games and not like BG1 cameos in BG2.
Baldur's gate 3: Torment
Though arguably it's probably for the best if BG3 assumed your Bhaalspawn refused Godhood.
Start with a new character but the story progresses along side the main story of BG1 and/or BG2 in a way.
Meaning that you might bump into "your former self", ofc not heavily involved in the story but just so you can gaze at your previous awesomeness.
It will be like walking in your own footsteps except your walking alongside.
Just some immediate thoughts from the top of my head.
Thoughts/ideas?
ps: nvm my vote, changed my mind.
About the rules, yes it is a little sad that my fav second edition wont be used anymore, but since I knew that already I guess I can accept that BG3 will have any new rules, just hope they don't get worse.
But I don't think you can make a Baldur's Gate 3 about CHARNAME, he's the Lord of Murder now. I want the Bhaalspawn story to continue with a new character and for CHARNAME to be a featured part.
I guess theoretically devs could provide the means to import your CHARNAME's .cre file from BG2:EE. But understand that's between two different games (and probably two different engines). It's not going to happen...
If they do end up using the same enhanced Infinity engine for BG3 (which we have been told not to expect), then this would be a more feasible option, actually.
That's my thoughts, I would rather see them attempt something challenging(reviving the Bhallspawn saga) and hopefully suprise us with something many think couldn't be done than make something totally new from scratch. I'd be willing to by that game if they released it separately but not as a Baldur's Gate. Either be true to the series or let it die.
I'd like it to continue ToB's story, but with an entirely new newbie, possibly son or daughter of Noober himself. "You were born from a humble family. Your father Noober was the local annoyance. Your mother Noober was... the local annoyance."
"All Bette's stories have happy endings. That's because she knows where to stop. She's realized the real problem with stories - if you keep them going long enough, they always end in death."
The Bhaalspawn saga was an excellent story that reached its natural conclusion. In an industry that's positively overflowing with sub-par "let's keep this series going a little more, now what's the story again?" games, do we really need another? Isn't part of D&D's charm the idea that you can have different adventures and tell different stories in the same familiar lands? Don't you want to experience that same feeling you felt in BG1, fresh out of Candlekeep with no idea of the epic tale you were about to begin?
Until ToB came about I was under the impression that they would close the story with BG3 (which I think was the original plan, but correct me if I'm wrong). Plus was the Bhaal priests conspirators scene ever definitively answered or is that still open to fan debates?
I also didn't find Melissan as compelling as Irenicus or Sarevok (though I didn't hate her either). To me a BG3 could be a chance to give real closure to your character. I felt that the game didn't really do that well enough for me (though I enjoyed the companion epilogues for the most part).
Plus I just couldn't see a new game with a different story and protagonist unrelated to the Bhaalspawn as Baldur's Gate 3. To me it would be a new series or a spin-off. Like a James Bond film that centres around a side character and James doesn't feature.
Though don't get me wrong. I'd still play the game if it were good, it played in a similar style and the story was compelling. I'd just prefer another story with the Bhaalspawn or if they did have to go in another direction entirely, not to call the game BG3. Just my take on it.
Baldur's Gate III: The Black Hound
Now, I'm sure it's possible to invent some loose thread that could serve as the starting point for another extension of the story, but... okay, this is what I don't understand. The fact that BG1, BG2 and ToB have a continuous storyline is less a matter of tradition and more a matter of coincidence. Look at the other game series set in the same world: "Icewind Dale" isn't character-centric at all, and if you take all the expansions into account then "Neverwinter Nights" has at least four canonical protagonists (ie: the PC in NWN1, the PC in SoU/HotU, the PC in NWN2/MotB and the PC in SoZ are all strongly implied to be different people) and minimal connections between the various storylines. The BG trilogy, as it currently stands, is the exception, not the rule. Why is it suddenly so important for direct continuity to be a thing? Are there no other stories to be told about the Sword Coast?
I'm not saying it's not a conclusion at all, just that not everyone will view it as the most fitting. I personally would like one last game as a send off to that character and story.
I'll be honest. I haven't played all of those games. I'm more used to series having continuity with the previous story, though I'm sure I've probably experienced some who don't outside of those you mention. I think it's a little strong to say that BG followed the same protagonist by coincidence, they clearly had an idea they were carry the story forward over at least one sequel. Though BG may be the exception when view amongst similar games in different series, as it stands the Baldur's Gate series has followed the Bhaalspawn. It isn't a sudden interest in continuing the Bhaalspawn story, that's my personal preference that I've had since I completed ToB. I'm not denying there are other stories in the Sword Coast, but I feel that in light of the Baldur's Gate series itself as it stands (which has been around a decade now) that would feel more like a spin-off. Like I've said before, I'm not completely against that, but I don't think that should be Baldur's Gate 3.
It could all still happen in Baldur's Gate but include the lands north. Also the towns could be the same size or bigger but sickness and monsters keep down population so they haven't grown 20 years later. It is a medieval fantasy after all.
You could make the high hedge, lathanders temple and Gnoll stronghold character strongholds. Also cloak wood has a ranger cabin and a Druid tree. It is so perfect!
I would make Melisan your little sister who gets involved and fools her big brother or sister. She could even be responsible for you not being able to save more children.
Man I wish I had time and know how to make mods. There is too much potential here to squander it.
Drop the name Baldur's Gate and set it somewhere else, there's plenty of other cities/ cultures far away from the Sword Coast that id rather see in a new game.
Just keep the same gameplay, style and writing
Now, if it were a child of charname, or the teleporting bhaalspawn who made it out of saradush for example, and who's essence would not have been culled at the end of ToB, then that gives you room to work with.
But I'd want to see all sorts of repercussions from the events of the first two games, BG1 and BG2 harkenings and story links, a Bhaalspawn element, similar humor and inventiveness, some smattering of the same creatures, xvarts (even female ones), maybe surprise returns to the same areas that now look different, lots of "100 yrs later" scenes, and a main plot that somehow derives from CHARNAME's actions or experiences in both games. None of it would have to be exclusively nostalgia, but, say, the Carbos-Shank reunion in Athkatla- a fun encounter in itself, but way funnier if you remember them from Candlekeep. Plus all the NPCs from BG1 that get their cameos in BG2. Things like that make a BG3 grippingly intriguing to consider. Something just pulled out of a hat and topped with a BG cherry... not so intriguing...