If you could sit down with James Ohlen to discuss his work on the original Baldur's Gate games, what would you want to ask him?
- Thread starter dmwyvern
- Start date
- Messages
- 478
So, here's a few for me. More may come łater.
1. There were some fan theories circulating around original BG fanbase, that there was a bigger plot planned in BG2 around secret illithid invasion on Athkatla, basen on various mind flayer activity we've seen in the game. Were there plans to expand illithid presence in BG2?
2. As we all know, there is an enemy encounter with The Twisted Rune, featuring some canonical characters (like Shangalar or Shyressa), but the whole plot seems undercooked. Was there anything more planned for The Twisted Rune, perhaps in ToB?
3. Were there any plans to add a third, more neutral route, so you could avoid siding with Bodhi or Shadow Thieves? This always felt like picking less evil.
4. I always felt there is an untapped potential in the story of Tamoko, but it wasn't explored the way I was hoping for. Is there anything more to her story that was perhaps scrapped?
1. There were some fan theories circulating around original BG fanbase, that there was a bigger plot planned in BG2 around secret illithid invasion on Athkatla, basen on various mind flayer activity we've seen in the game. Were there plans to expand illithid presence in BG2?
2. As we all know, there is an enemy encounter with The Twisted Rune, featuring some canonical characters (like Shangalar or Shyressa), but the whole plot seems undercooked. Was there anything more planned for The Twisted Rune, perhaps in ToB?
3. Were there any plans to add a third, more neutral route, so you could avoid siding with Bodhi or Shadow Thieves? This always felt like picking less evil.
4. I always felt there is an untapped potential in the story of Tamoko, but it wasn't explored the way I was hoping for. Is there anything more to her story that was perhaps scrapped?
O_Bruce
Habitué
- Messages
- 518
Mine would be:
1. Crucial to the story of Jon Irenicus in Shadows of Amn, the curse cast by Seldarine on him and his sister is often considered by community of fans as unfair, contradictory/backwards punishment and questionable judgement, making both Ellessime and elven pantheon look incompetnt, to say the least. What lead to this story decision? Was something cut? And hypothetically, if Baldur's Gate II was to be remade, would you add or alter this part of storyline?
2. Are there examples of cut content/mechanics/storylines that didn't make it to the final game that aren't covered by restoriation mods, such as Unfinished Business? If so, can you please indulge a longtime fan and describe some of said cut content?
3. In Baldur's Gate, there is a character of Albert, a child with a lost pet "dog", and at the end of the quest, it turns out Albert is, in fact, some kind of demon from lower planes. Coincidencally, there is a boy named Albert with a lost dog in Baldur's Gate 3 as well. They are not the same character, but it makes me wonder: were at any point in time plans to inlcude the original Albert in some kind of big role in further installments of the series?
1. Crucial to the story of Jon Irenicus in Shadows of Amn, the curse cast by Seldarine on him and his sister is often considered by community of fans as unfair, contradictory/backwards punishment and questionable judgement, making both Ellessime and elven pantheon look incompetnt, to say the least. What lead to this story decision? Was something cut? And hypothetically, if Baldur's Gate II was to be remade, would you add or alter this part of storyline?
2. Are there examples of cut content/mechanics/storylines that didn't make it to the final game that aren't covered by restoriation mods, such as Unfinished Business? If so, can you please indulge a longtime fan and describe some of said cut content?
3. In Baldur's Gate, there is a character of Albert, a child with a lost pet "dog", and at the end of the quest, it turns out Albert is, in fact, some kind of demon from lower planes. Coincidencally, there is a boy named Albert with a lost dog in Baldur's Gate 3 as well. They are not the same character, but it makes me wonder: were at any point in time plans to inlcude the original Albert in some kind of big role in further installments of the series?
JustKneller
Habitué
- Messages
- 961
I want to preface my question to provide context. James Ohlen is no slouch. I think I read that he was a long time DM before even getting into game design. So, he went into BG knowing the system and even setting pretty well (Forgotten Realms was the flagship during that time). On top of that, he's done a lot of other work that was great. KOTOR was really well received. Neverwinter Nights had a pretty solid story, too. He also led on Dragon Age Origins which, even though it was not my cup of tea, it's story held together well enough.
All that being said, my question (with all due respect, and there's a lot of respect due to Ohlen) about BG2, which is far more complex and multi-layered than my brevity would suggest, would just be, 'What the heck happened and why?'
All that being said, my question (with all due respect, and there's a lot of respect due to Ohlen) about BG2, which is far more complex and multi-layered than my brevity would suggest, would just be, 'What the heck happened and why?'
- Messages
- 249
I have heard that there was supposed to be a quest for Minsc in BG2 where Boo got kidnapped and you had to find and rescue him, but that this quest got scrapped due to time constraints (really unfortunate, sounds like it would have been a really fun one). Could you share any details about this quest you can remember?
In BG1, there is a character called Lord Foreshadow who gives some sneaky clues about some future projects the team was working on, including BG2 and Neverwinter Nights. These games didn't come out until years later. How far ahead were you guys planning things? I find it especially surprising that you had NWN planned way back then...
In BG1, there is a character called Lord Foreshadow who gives some sneaky clues about some future projects the team was working on, including BG2 and Neverwinter Nights. These games didn't come out until years later. How far ahead were you guys planning things? I find it especially surprising that you had NWN planned way back then...
- Messages
- 1,806
Can you clarify what you mean, please?
JustKneller
Habitué
- Messages
- 961
Sure thing. One thing before I start, I'm not counting SoD as part of the canon. This is largely due to it being created well after the fact by a third party, making the narrative basically fan-fiction to me. Like, I'm not looking down on it for being third party, but the story in the core games is rough enough as is, we don't need SoD stirring the pot. Besides, James Ohlen had nothing to do with SoD, right?
The short version is that it seems to me there were a lot of choices that solved a problem in the moment, but the further reaching effects were not considered. I think a lot of the answers that came after the fact were due to people asking questions, but the answers just lead to more questions. None of the story feels like it organically emerged, but more that a creative wall was hit, and something was needed to get over that particular obstacle in that moment.
The first game was pretty tight. The whole god-blooded storyline was a tad over-the-top for me based on my own experiences with D&D but a) everybody has a different experience with this game and something so epic is not inappropriate at all, b) this is an essentially single-player video game so that is going to have an impact on narrative emphasis, and most importantly, c) from a literary perspective, it does work, for the most part. I'm good with the first game. I wouldn't run that at the table, but in a video game it's good stuff. All in all, it's a 4/5 game for me.
Baldur's Gate is basically D&D Highlander. Except, 'there can be only one' is less the ultimate prize, but the resurrection of Bhaal. I'm ok with this. I had a friend who was well versed in ancient Greek literature and basically said that the Greeks have already told every story and we just keep rebooting it. As long as we do an interesting job of it and the craft is good, it's all cool to me. But, there's so many questions that can pop up with Baldur's Gate timeline. Alaundo's prophecies were more than a millenium before the Time of Troubles. What people were doing about Bhaalspawn before 'The Gathering' is a mystery. The whole thing about the cult where Sarevok, Imoen, and GW were found also raises a lot of questions. How did the cult find and gather all these kids and everyone else was doing nothing about it? How did the meticuluous Harpers miss the seven-year-old (Sarevok) in the mix. I think it was written off as the 'chaos' of the raid, but the Harpers basically wiped out the cultists. Chaos is over with a bunch of kids sitting around. It all just seems like a handwave.
Then we have the second game, which basically hinges not just on Imoen, but her character having a massive paradigm shift. I mean, she was originally never supposed to leave Candlekeep, but then they grow her into an NPC. I'm good with that. It's a good move. She's a plucky, light-hearted, precocious rogue which not only balances out the gravity of GW's situation, but also provides you with a skill monkey that is generally needed in a D&D game. Then they turn her into something completely different in the second game. She happens to become a mage somewhere during your adventures in the first game (I believe SoD retcons this a little, but I'm ignoring that) which really feels like it wasn't true to the character, but done just to contrive a plot hook to get characters on track in the second game. I can also criticize this on a gameplay level. That is, it is now a pain in the ass to play the implied canon party in the first game with an Imoen dual at level 6 or 7 (it's hard to say which is accurate since they borked her stats in the second game). I mean, it was a thing that happened and was written. You can't argue that, but why this choice?
And why Irenicus? His story isn't bad, but it is also only tangentally germane to GW. I think there is a strong narrative to present there, but he reeks of side quest. If anything, I would have flipped the narrative emphasis of ToB and SoA. ToB was the culmination of GW's story and that should have been more than an expansion. That should have been the second game. At the end of it, GW is presumably the last Bhaalspawn* after ToB (except for Viekang, wherever he pissed off to), making him Irenicus' last hope (at least in the wizard's mind). His story didn't need a full game, but would have made a more solid expansion. Keep in mind, prior to the end of ToB, Irenicus had many more options, and probably easier targets than the bhaalspawn that just saved the entire Sword Coast. If you flipped SoA and ToB, you would just have GW, Imoen, and Viekang as the last Bhaalspawn (and Viekang would have made a great plot device as a failed initial experiment of Irenicus). You could still kidnap Imoen, you still get the Yoshimo story, you don't even need the narratively absurd cowled wizards or Imoen's uncharacteristic and contrived dual class. You just have a shorter investigative journey to track down your best friend and save her. Thus completes the saga (until BG3, of course). This also would have worked well because most people would also probably keep Yoshimo around to have a thief (easy direct replacement), making his betrayal even more impactful (I've always tried to keep him in BG2 for this reason).
This would have been a much stronger narrative. It could have avoided the absurdity of the cowled wizards. For example, I go to spellhold for casting Friends, but a cleric can gate a demon into Waukeen's Promenade and they don't care? The narrative could have been constructed differently so you don't have the mismatch between needing to rush and save Imoen versus wanting to sidequest a bunch in chapter 2 to gather loot and swag (you basically have enough gold to go get her by the end of Nalia's quest). I just think it would have all flowed a lot better and made for a stronger game.
I mean, there are so many different things you can nitpick on with the writing on this one, but the more I think about it, the more I think almost all of it could have been solved with flipping SoA and ToB. So yeah, what was what happened what was chosen instead?
*The metaphysical implications of Imoen and Sarevok dying as Bhaalspawn and then coming back is a whole other conversation and pulling at this thread could unravel the entire story, quite frankly.
The short version is that it seems to me there were a lot of choices that solved a problem in the moment, but the further reaching effects were not considered. I think a lot of the answers that came after the fact were due to people asking questions, but the answers just lead to more questions. None of the story feels like it organically emerged, but more that a creative wall was hit, and something was needed to get over that particular obstacle in that moment.
The first game was pretty tight. The whole god-blooded storyline was a tad over-the-top for me based on my own experiences with D&D but a) everybody has a different experience with this game and something so epic is not inappropriate at all, b) this is an essentially single-player video game so that is going to have an impact on narrative emphasis, and most importantly, c) from a literary perspective, it does work, for the most part. I'm good with the first game. I wouldn't run that at the table, but in a video game it's good stuff. All in all, it's a 4/5 game for me.
Baldur's Gate is basically D&D Highlander. Except, 'there can be only one' is less the ultimate prize, but the resurrection of Bhaal. I'm ok with this. I had a friend who was well versed in ancient Greek literature and basically said that the Greeks have already told every story and we just keep rebooting it. As long as we do an interesting job of it and the craft is good, it's all cool to me. But, there's so many questions that can pop up with Baldur's Gate timeline. Alaundo's prophecies were more than a millenium before the Time of Troubles. What people were doing about Bhaalspawn before 'The Gathering' is a mystery. The whole thing about the cult where Sarevok, Imoen, and GW were found also raises a lot of questions. How did the cult find and gather all these kids and everyone else was doing nothing about it? How did the meticuluous Harpers miss the seven-year-old (Sarevok) in the mix. I think it was written off as the 'chaos' of the raid, but the Harpers basically wiped out the cultists. Chaos is over with a bunch of kids sitting around. It all just seems like a handwave.
Then we have the second game, which basically hinges not just on Imoen, but her character having a massive paradigm shift. I mean, she was originally never supposed to leave Candlekeep, but then they grow her into an NPC. I'm good with that. It's a good move. She's a plucky, light-hearted, precocious rogue which not only balances out the gravity of GW's situation, but also provides you with a skill monkey that is generally needed in a D&D game. Then they turn her into something completely different in the second game. She happens to become a mage somewhere during your adventures in the first game (I believe SoD retcons this a little, but I'm ignoring that) which really feels like it wasn't true to the character, but done just to contrive a plot hook to get characters on track in the second game. I can also criticize this on a gameplay level. That is, it is now a pain in the ass to play the implied canon party in the first game with an Imoen dual at level 6 or 7 (it's hard to say which is accurate since they borked her stats in the second game). I mean, it was a thing that happened and was written. You can't argue that, but why this choice?
And why Irenicus? His story isn't bad, but it is also only tangentally germane to GW. I think there is a strong narrative to present there, but he reeks of side quest. If anything, I would have flipped the narrative emphasis of ToB and SoA. ToB was the culmination of GW's story and that should have been more than an expansion. That should have been the second game. At the end of it, GW is presumably the last Bhaalspawn* after ToB (except for Viekang, wherever he pissed off to), making him Irenicus' last hope (at least in the wizard's mind). His story didn't need a full game, but would have made a more solid expansion. Keep in mind, prior to the end of ToB, Irenicus had many more options, and probably easier targets than the bhaalspawn that just saved the entire Sword Coast. If you flipped SoA and ToB, you would just have GW, Imoen, and Viekang as the last Bhaalspawn (and Viekang would have made a great plot device as a failed initial experiment of Irenicus). You could still kidnap Imoen, you still get the Yoshimo story, you don't even need the narratively absurd cowled wizards or Imoen's uncharacteristic and contrived dual class. You just have a shorter investigative journey to track down your best friend and save her. Thus completes the saga (until BG3, of course). This also would have worked well because most people would also probably keep Yoshimo around to have a thief (easy direct replacement), making his betrayal even more impactful (I've always tried to keep him in BG2 for this reason).
This would have been a much stronger narrative. It could have avoided the absurdity of the cowled wizards. For example, I go to spellhold for casting Friends, but a cleric can gate a demon into Waukeen's Promenade and they don't care? The narrative could have been constructed differently so you don't have the mismatch between needing to rush and save Imoen versus wanting to sidequest a bunch in chapter 2 to gather loot and swag (you basically have enough gold to go get her by the end of Nalia's quest). I just think it would have all flowed a lot better and made for a stronger game.
I mean, there are so many different things you can nitpick on with the writing on this one, but the more I think about it, the more I think almost all of it could have been solved with flipping SoA and ToB. So yeah, what was what happened what was chosen instead?
*The metaphysical implications of Imoen and Sarevok dying as Bhaalspawn and then coming back is a whole other conversation and pulling at this thread could unravel the entire story, quite frankly.
WarChiefZeke
Habitué
- Messages
- 216
I would ask him if he chooses Shadowhart or Lae'zel as his lover in BG3? Maybe Gale or the Bear instead?
O_Bruce
Habitué
- Messages
- 518
According to this way of reasoning, BG3 isn't canon, especially since: 1) Khalid's gift implies SoD events happened in BG3 continuity, 2) BG3 screwed over story of original games to the extent SoD could only dreamed of (BG3 basically made everything pointless). But maybe that's a conversation for another time.
Last edited:
OrlonKronsteen
Habitué
- Messages
- 333
1. Was there ever a +12 Hackmaster in the works?
2. What was the story with Shank and Carbos reappearing in BG2?
2. What was the story with Shank and Carbos reappearing in BG2?
JustKneller
Habitué
- Messages
- 961
That's a bit outside my scope since I never picked up BG3. I have heard some stories, though. Stuff about Sarevok's redemption being pointless, some twists with Viconia, etc.
However, if we're talking about the creative process, ToB came out in 2001 and all the story choices were made with those who made the choices having no idea that Beamdog or Larian would come into the picture later and do their own thing. The people who created BG2 'said their peace', so to speak, and with the release of ToB, that was that.
A lot of that stuff I kinda wrote off as quirky easter egg type things. Like, Shank and Carbos' reappearance, the BMU, the chinchilla Bhaalspawn, etc. all don't really fit the story but they were just cheeky comedic breaks. Considering this came from the same studio (not necessarily the same people, though) who put out MDK2 (which was way cheekier than MDK1), I let the stuff that was clearly just for laughs slide.