It'll feel really forced if Minsc ends up being a party member in the upcoming game. I'm potentially fine with a few cameos, but that's about where I'd leave it. I'd ratherr he not be there at all if I had my pick.
I like the idea of cameos where they make sense. Maybe Jaheira will own the Friendly Arm Inn, or something. Less statue minsc running around being low leveled.
I personally prefer the second interpretation, so that isn't really "our" Minsc but more of a clone created by Wild magic
I think we may have a chance to meet Coran (he is in parliment).
Every Mage is probably dead, the former LI should not appear.
I would like for Imoen to appear.. BUT more like "her soul is claimed by Bhaal and he turned her into his minion, deafeat her to free her soul and get some info out of it" (Not sure if that is a good idea or if my wish to give her a better ending blinds me...)
But the only way to have a conection to the BG1+2 as teammembers should be descendants or at most students.
Well, in the case of long-lived companions such as elves or dwarves, it's quite feasible that they'd still be around. Aerie and Viconia would definitely still be alive (although Viconia either winds up dead or vanished in her endings). But I agree though; at most they should just show up as brief cameos, and not become full-fledged party members. To do otherwise runs the risk of creating narrative dissonance among players who had very different endings in mind for their companions.
Eh, I think Larian has pretty clearly shown that they don't care about "narrative dissonance" or old fans. This game is a sequel to some P&P modules. This game is just a title recognition cash grab.
@ThacoBell I know you feel strongly about this. But isn't it a bit too early to call the game that? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to see first what connections/references the game will have to the story of classic BG and how that will feel?
"they don't care about old fans"
I can't agree with this at this moment. Without trying the actual game I wouldn't be able to judge whether they listen to fans of classic BG or not, and by what margin.
If they did not care for the old fans they would not have made BG3.
Creating that game, even though most younger gamers probably don't know the franchise, is a massive gamble.
The D&D licence carries a lot of fans, but adding Baldurs Gate increases the expection enormous.
The old fans have massive expectations, the younger may know it from best rpg lists, so I honestly think that the risk is much higher than the recognition. If the game has too many flaws or does not feel enough like the BG people *remember* it will be panned - no matter how good the game is on its own.
I honestly believe that a bunch of old BG fans have the money and opportunity to fulfill their childhood dream: making BG3.
Will their wishing coincide with your or mine vision? Hard to say with so little information, but I think the chances that it is the vision of an "old fan" is much higher than you think.
I actually nearly never use him in BG1 - Inever found him useful, the Gnoll fortress is not exactly my favorit place (not sure if they are actually that difficulty or if it is more that they *look* dangerous to me) and his witch is even more useless imho... Also, her character always rubs me the wrong way.. =(
In BG2 I actually use him quite a bit more - especially together with Aerie.
They befriend each other quickly and he becomes her protector and since I quite like her he can come with us. ^^
I find my experience to be the opposite. I used Minsc+Dynaheir alot in my early playthroughs of BG. Everybody should know about the Web + Spider's bane combo with them, which can trivialize much of the second half content of the game. Further, the EE's give him (and all rangers) a slight boost by making it possible to switch between two-weapon style and something like a bow.
And also I just always find a ranger with stealth gear to be super useful, advancing alongside your thief in those really tough trap-and-monster filled dungeons, the ice prison or Durlag's.
Creating that game, even though most younger gamers probably don't know the franchise, is a massive gamble.
With continuing the Baldur's Gate franchise WotC and Larian went the "safest" route possible. The formula is well treaded by now and even people who have never actually played pnp D&D have at least heard of the Baldur's Gate series. Many people that played the first two video games will purchase the new shiny adventure out of nostalgia alone. If nothing else. And since the "old" Baldur's Gate players have since become parents, chances are that their gamerspawns will also start playing it. Which will lead to further purchases. Sure, there are expectations to fulfill, but the returns are huge.
If, on the other hand, WotC and Larian both went with something completely unproven and unknown, *that* would have been a real gamble. For instance: a starting entry to a completely new campaign setting, completely unrelated to the Forgotten Realms. (Disclosure: I would really have wished that this would've been the case. It's been decades since WotC had put anything exciting on the table.)
You may be right @Kamigoroshi but I still believe the expectation weighs heaveir then the exposure.
I personally would have chosen NWN3, not that much less known than BG but also lesser expectation.
If that would become a success I would tried BG3, but maybe I'm just overly cautious.
On the new game front.. I somehow agree. I would love a new D&D franchise which would show the richeness and diversity of the official worlds. Especially the world of Ravnica - which would also have the benefit from getting the MtG crowd because that is the best (and most popular) world there..
But I think if Larian makes a good sucessful BG3, then we may have the chance for more D&D games..
Maybe Beamdog makes an all new entry once Wizards is convinced that D&D games still - or once again- work.
You may be right @Kamigoroshi but I still believe the expectation weighs heaveir then the exposure.
I personally would have chosen NWN3, not that much less known than BG but also lesser expectation.
If that would become a success I would tried BG3, but maybe I'm just overly cautious.
On the new game front.. I somehow agree. I would love a new D&D franchise which would show the richeness and diversity of the official worlds. Especially the world of Ravnica - which would also have the benefit from getting the MtG crowd because that is the best (and most popular) world there..
But I think if Larian makes a good sucessful BG3, then we may have the chance for more D&D games..
Maybe Beamdog makes an all new entry once Wizards is convinced that D&D games still - or once again- work.
It is possible imo that tthe upcoming D&D movie... despite how bad the the two franchise predecessors were... could also open the door to making FR a widely popular mainstream fantasy setting, alongside Middle-Earth and Harry Potter.
Joe Manganiello desperately wants to be in this movie (per some articles I've read, video below just shares how much of a D&D nerd he is--this guy is so one of us):
Imagine if some of the other actors that either actively still play D&D and/or have played in the past and loved it, got in on this:
Vin Diesel
Dwayne the Rock Johnson
Judi Dench
Matt Damon
Ben Affleck
James Franco
Terry Crews
Drew Barrymore
Patton Oswalt
Shia Lebeouf
But my main point is that if this film finally tells a great fantasy adventure tale set on the Sword Coast, and BG3 is a also a big hit, that could really do a lot to set more FR games in motion.
Ooh, I havn't heard about the movie, but nowadays movies are a good sign.. ^^
(I actually like the first movie but it has absolutly nothing to do with D&D oô)
I want to dream for a bit:
The movie and BG3 will be a success.. This leads to a renewed public interest in D&D stuff outside of the pen&paper fanbase, which leads to NWN3 and ID3. They are a success and other worlds get their video games.. Ravenloft, Eberron - and finally Wizards recreates Spelljammer and we get a D&D adventure spanning from Ferûn to Greyhawk to Ravenloft to Ravnica to Dominaria and to every other world Wizard created.. *_*
@JuliusBorisov "I know you feel strongly about this. But isn't it a bit too early to call the game that? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to see first what connections/references the game will have to the story of classic BG and how that will feel?"
No, I don't think its too early at all. Why? Because Laraian lead with the title and nothing else. They gave no details that would let us judge the game on its own merits (and still haven't, frankly). They put out a contextless title that they knew would blow up into mass hype and speculation. Brand recognition was the beginning and end of Larian's reveal. Even now they won't commit to any game decisions, giving out only vague points.
"I can't agree with this at this moment. Without trying the actual game I wouldn't be able to judge whether they listen to fans of classic BG or not, and by what margin."
We'll considering that this game is not connected with the old titles in anyway, its pretty clear they don't care about them. Larian has already stated that this game is a sequel to the P&P modules, and not the BG computer games. Their marketing ploy to get people worked up about the classic games worked, because even after its been revealed that its a P&P continuation, people are still talking about the game like its some kind of successor to the Bhaalspawn saga. It's a bait and switch.
@ThacoBell
They also said (iirc) that we will get cameos and some links to the original series.
Also, you do know that Murder in Baldurs Gate is in fact a sequel to BG: ToB, yes?
While I agree that it is a ..rather annoying move to just reveal the name and minimal infos going to the other extreme and declair that there will be no connection what-so-ever is as misguided as the opposite position.
@Arcanis "Also, you do know that Murder in Baldurs Gate is in fact a sequel to BG: ToB, yes?"
No its not. Its a sequel to the novels with some of the serial numbers filed off. There was no Abdel Adrian in any of my games, and I don't play plain fighters. So the module CANNOT be a sequel, it assumes things played out very differently.
@ThacoBell
If you put someone in a module he needs a name and class.
Also, it can't actually be canon, because the Minsc Wizards let appear in other media is nothing like the one in the books but like the one in the game.
Should they have use another name? Yes, there was no need to remind people of the "books".
But such a small detail that can be easily remidied by every DM should not be such a deal breaker.
When you have played BG1 back in the day, did you use Imoen, Khaleid, Jaheira, Minsc and Dynaheir?
Because the second game implied that. It was also canon that you at least met Viconia as she recognizes you. That was a set canon until Beamdog created another explanation, but (I assume) we all created a headcanon to fix the continuation errors for our game.
Tabletop lives by the DM, the rules explicity state that a DM should change the game (and thus the module) for his group. So yeah, if you play Murder in Baldurs Gate, Abdel Adrian is nothing but a placeholder because CHARNAME is kinda immersion breaking for a p&p module.
What I personally would love is that Wizards greenlights a smaller game, where you can import your BG2 save and replay murder in Baldurs Gate - but with the importet character in place of Adrian.
But in the end, to restore continuity all Larian and Wizard has to do is to keep the name of the hero of Baldurs Gate vague and there is no error.
P.s: should you argue that the fact that the adventurer ending and not the ascension end is made canon,
well, that it is. But you could actually create a scenario where Viekang becomes Bhaals avatar and the godly charname gets taken over by Bhaal. But yeah, some decision are set as canon, but calling that disrespectful would mean that Baldurs Gate 2 was disrespectful to its predecessor..
I'd love to see Minsc and Boo back, as long as the explanation is satisfactory. Petrification followed by Stone to Flesh is an ingenious idea that would accomplish it perfectly.
Boo is an intellect devourer with levels of druid that can wildshape into a hamster, and Minsc is it's puppet? Could keep him alive 100 years.
Anyway, I'm cool with some bard singing a saga about Minsc in memorial, but he's human. 100+ years exceeds most human life spans, and resurrection doesn't work on a character who has died of old age. If he is still alive, he'd better have a beard to his knees, a hunched over back, and a taxidermied hamster hanging from a string.
If the comic is canon than he is alive and has spent the time as a statue in Baldurs Gate.
Well either that or the Minsc who runs around *is* a statue that became him through Wild Magic..
i dont know about this comic per se, but what i could find about minsc was in the 2nd or 3rd dnd edition era ( so 100 years ago or so? ) he someone became a hero of baldur's gate, but then of coarse either died in battle or of old age
then in the 5th edtition world somehow the statue of him in BG the city got animated and was turned into minsc, but not necessarily the minsc we all know, it perhaps acted like minsc did, but had no memories of minsc's past
then i researched and found out that he traveled with some random group to go do some random things somewhere else about giants....? dont remember, i forgot what quest he want on, but by the sounds of it i believe he was successful
so for minsc to be in BG 3 and if WotC or larian want to "keep things canon" ( lol ) minsc will either just have a cameo; or be able to join the team at a higher level ( after he finishes his quest ) or for some reason you just happen to stumble upon him when his statue gets reanimated and then he can join up with you ( which would make no sense at all because the quest minsc went on had nothing to do with mind flayers if im not mistaken )
I'd be down for a statue being animated by wild magic. So long as its not the actual Minsc. That dude has been through hell and deserves to keep his happy ending.
What if a statue is animated by magic with the actual spirit of Minsc who now has the opportunity to live a normal life without the effects of the brain damage he suffered?
I'd be down for a statue being animated by wild magic. So long as its not the actual Minsc. That dude has been through hell and deserves to keep his happy ending.
the problem is the comic kinda states it is Minsc and not a statue that thinks he is Minsc. as he thinks the wild mage is neera.
and if Minsc is in bg 3 it's gonna take from that comic.
What if a statue is animated by magic with the actual spirit of Minsc who now has the opportunity to live a normal life without the effects of the brain damage he suffered?
Minsc never showed any indication that he didn't already love life as he was. Besides, how would bringing him back be in any way better than whatever Valhalla esque afterlife he is probably enjoying right now?
Are you sure petrification really kills the target but does not simply put it into inanimate state between living and dead?
Maybe petrification is one of the worst 'deaths' possible likely only topped by imprisonment?
Depends on the wholeness of the "statue" in question. Should the petrified person for instance have lost important parts through the passage of time, he would naturally die on the spot when targeted with Stone to Flesh. Which, given that even solid stone crumbles when hit by the elements, is highly likely.
The soul on the other hand is meanwhile anchored to a slap of stone. Without the ability to perceive sound, colours or sense of touch. From a psychological standpoint it should drive the spirit literally insane. So, yeah, After 100 years there should be not a single shred of the soul's past Self remaining when brought back to life.
Stone to flesh reverts the effect but you are never sure what will be happen. The target may be insane or if it lost parts it may be seriously wounded or even drop dead immediately.
Your best hope is to use it on someone who was turned to stone very recently;
Yeah, coming back from petrification after a long period of time is very much a "it depends" situation. Some souls with an extremely strong sense of self (read: high Charisma) might have been able to weather the years of entrapment relatively well, but it's always a bit of a gamble. Outsiders (celestials, demons, devils etc.), aberrations (illithids, aboleths, beholders etc.) or other creatures with strange mental patterns (modrons, inevitables) would probably also come out of extended petrification relatively sane, but even this is not a guarantee (there are plenty of tales of genies who were driven insane by their long imprisonment when their lamp/bottle got lost in an inaccessible location such as being dropped into the ocean, for instance).
Comments
I like the idea of cameos where they make sense. Maybe Jaheira will own the Friendly Arm Inn, or something. Less statue minsc running around being low leveled.
I think we may have a chance to meet Coran (he is in parliment).
Every Mage is probably dead, the former LI should not appear.
I would like for Imoen to appear.. BUT more like "her soul is claimed by Bhaal and he turned her into his minion, deafeat her to free her soul and get some info out of it" (Not sure if that is a good idea or if my wish to give her a better ending blinds me...)
But the only way to have a conection to the BG1+2 as teammembers should be descendants or at most students.
@ThacoBell I know you feel strongly about this. But isn't it a bit too early to call the game that? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to see first what connections/references the game will have to the story of classic BG and how that will feel?
"they don't care about old fans"
I can't agree with this at this moment. Without trying the actual game I wouldn't be able to judge whether they listen to fans of classic BG or not, and by what margin.
Creating that game, even though most younger gamers probably don't know the franchise, is a massive gamble.
The D&D licence carries a lot of fans, but adding Baldurs Gate increases the expection enormous.
The old fans have massive expectations, the younger may know it from best rpg lists, so I honestly think that the risk is much higher than the recognition. If the game has too many flaws or does not feel enough like the BG people *remember* it will be panned - no matter how good the game is on its own.
I honestly believe that a bunch of old BG fans have the money and opportunity to fulfill their childhood dream: making BG3.
Will their wishing coincide with your or mine vision? Hard to say with so little information, but I think the chances that it is the vision of an "old fan" is much higher than you think.
I find my experience to be the opposite. I used Minsc+Dynaheir alot in my early playthroughs of BG. Everybody should know about the Web + Spider's bane combo with them, which can trivialize much of the second half content of the game. Further, the EE's give him (and all rangers) a slight boost by making it possible to switch between two-weapon style and something like a bow.
And also I just always find a ranger with stealth gear to be super useful, advancing alongside your thief in those really tough trap-and-monster filled dungeons, the ice prison or Durlag's.
With continuing the Baldur's Gate franchise WotC and Larian went the "safest" route possible. The formula is well treaded by now and even people who have never actually played pnp D&D have at least heard of the Baldur's Gate series. Many people that played the first two video games will purchase the new shiny adventure out of nostalgia alone. If nothing else. And since the "old" Baldur's Gate players have since become parents, chances are that their gamerspawns will also start playing it. Which will lead to further purchases. Sure, there are expectations to fulfill, but the returns are huge.
If, on the other hand, WotC and Larian both went with something completely unproven and unknown, *that* would have been a real gamble. For instance: a starting entry to a completely new campaign setting, completely unrelated to the Forgotten Realms. (Disclosure: I would really have wished that this would've been the case. It's been decades since WotC had put anything exciting on the table.)
I personally would have chosen NWN3, not that much less known than BG but also lesser expectation.
If that would become a success I would tried BG3, but maybe I'm just overly cautious.
On the new game front.. I somehow agree. I would love a new D&D franchise which would show the richeness and diversity of the official worlds. Especially the world of Ravnica - which would also have the benefit from getting the MtG crowd because that is the best (and most popular) world there..
But I think if Larian makes a good sucessful BG3, then we may have the chance for more D&D games..
Maybe Beamdog makes an all new entry once Wizards is convinced that D&D games still - or once again- work.
It is possible imo that tthe upcoming D&D movie... despite how bad the the two franchise predecessors were... could also open the door to making FR a widely popular mainstream fantasy setting, alongside Middle-Earth and Harry Potter.
Joe Manganiello desperately wants to be in this movie (per some articles I've read, video below just shares how much of a D&D nerd he is--this guy is so one of us):
Imagine if some of the other actors that either actively still play D&D and/or have played in the past and loved it, got in on this:
Vin Diesel
Dwayne the Rock Johnson
Judi Dench
Matt Damon
Ben Affleck
James Franco
Terry Crews
Drew Barrymore
Patton Oswalt
Shia Lebeouf
But my main point is that if this film finally tells a great fantasy adventure tale set on the Sword Coast, and BG3 is a also a big hit, that could really do a lot to set more FR games in motion.
(I actually like the first movie but it has absolutly nothing to do with D&D oô)
I want to dream for a bit:
The movie and BG3 will be a success.. This leads to a renewed public interest in D&D stuff outside of the pen&paper fanbase, which leads to NWN3 and ID3. They are a success and other worlds get their video games.. Ravenloft, Eberron - and finally Wizards recreates Spelljammer and we get a D&D adventure spanning from Ferûn to Greyhawk to Ravenloft to Ravnica to Dominaria and to every other world Wizard created.. *_*
No, I don't think its too early at all. Why? Because Laraian lead with the title and nothing else. They gave no details that would let us judge the game on its own merits (and still haven't, frankly). They put out a contextless title that they knew would blow up into mass hype and speculation. Brand recognition was the beginning and end of Larian's reveal. Even now they won't commit to any game decisions, giving out only vague points.
"I can't agree with this at this moment. Without trying the actual game I wouldn't be able to judge whether they listen to fans of classic BG or not, and by what margin."
We'll considering that this game is not connected with the old titles in anyway, its pretty clear they don't care about them. Larian has already stated that this game is a sequel to the P&P modules, and not the BG computer games. Their marketing ploy to get people worked up about the classic games worked, because even after its been revealed that its a P&P continuation, people are still talking about the game like its some kind of successor to the Bhaalspawn saga. It's a bait and switch.
They also said (iirc) that we will get cameos and some links to the original series.
Also, you do know that Murder in Baldurs Gate is in fact a sequel to BG: ToB, yes?
While I agree that it is a ..rather annoying move to just reveal the name and minimal infos going to the other extreme and declair that there will be no connection what-so-ever is as misguided as the opposite position.
No its not. Its a sequel to the novels with some of the serial numbers filed off. There was no Abdel Adrian in any of my games, and I don't play plain fighters. So the module CANNOT be a sequel, it assumes things played out very differently.
If you put someone in a module he needs a name and class.
Also, it can't actually be canon, because the Minsc Wizards let appear in other media is nothing like the one in the books but like the one in the game.
Should they have use another name? Yes, there was no need to remind people of the "books".
But such a small detail that can be easily remidied by every DM should not be such a deal breaker.
When you have played BG1 back in the day, did you use Imoen, Khaleid, Jaheira, Minsc and Dynaheir?
Because the second game implied that. It was also canon that you at least met Viconia as she recognizes you. That was a set canon until Beamdog created another explanation, but (I assume) we all created a headcanon to fix the continuation errors for our game.
Tabletop lives by the DM, the rules explicity state that a DM should change the game (and thus the module) for his group. So yeah, if you play Murder in Baldurs Gate, Abdel Adrian is nothing but a placeholder because CHARNAME is kinda immersion breaking for a p&p module.
What I personally would love is that Wizards greenlights a smaller game, where you can import your BG2 save and replay murder in Baldurs Gate - but with the importet character in place of Adrian.
But in the end, to restore continuity all Larian and Wizard has to do is to keep the name of the hero of Baldurs Gate vague and there is no error.
P.s: should you argue that the fact that the adventurer ending and not the ascension end is made canon,
well, that it is. But you could actually create a scenario where Viekang becomes Bhaals avatar and the godly charname gets taken over by Bhaal. But yeah, some decision are set as canon, but calling that disrespectful would mean that Baldurs Gate 2 was disrespectful to its predecessor..
bg 3 will be remembered just like mass effect Andromeda a needless sequel people will ignore and consider non canon.
i dont know about this comic per se, but what i could find about minsc was in the 2nd or 3rd dnd edition era ( so 100 years ago or so? ) he someone became a hero of baldur's gate, but then of coarse either died in battle or of old age
then in the 5th edtition world somehow the statue of him in BG the city got animated and was turned into minsc, but not necessarily the minsc we all know, it perhaps acted like minsc did, but had no memories of minsc's past
then i researched and found out that he traveled with some random group to go do some random things somewhere else about giants....? dont remember, i forgot what quest he want on, but by the sounds of it i believe he was successful
so for minsc to be in BG 3 and if WotC or larian want to "keep things canon" ( lol ) minsc will either just have a cameo; or be able to join the team at a higher level ( after he finishes his quest ) or for some reason you just happen to stumble upon him when his statue gets reanimated and then he can join up with you ( which would make no sense at all because the quest minsc went on had nothing to do with mind flayers if im not mistaken )
so i guess we will have to see what happens
the problem is the comic kinda states it is Minsc and not a statue that thinks he is Minsc. as he thinks the wild mage is neera.
and if Minsc is in bg 3 it's gonna take from that comic.
Minsc never showed any indication that he didn't already love life as he was. Besides, how would bringing him back be in any way better than whatever Valhalla esque afterlife he is probably enjoying right now?
Maybe petrification is one of the worst 'deaths' possible likely only topped by imprisonment?
The soul on the other hand is meanwhile anchored to a slap of stone. Without the ability to perceive sound, colours or sense of touch. From a psychological standpoint it should drive the spirit literally insane. So, yeah, After 100 years there should be not a single shred of the soul's past Self remaining when brought back to life.
Either way it's a "Dead End".
Your best hope is to use it on someone who was turned to stone very recently;
...difficult to believe...