When I listed the "Larianisms" I did not mean that none of things EXISTED in D&D or in D&D video games before. Of course they did. All of them did. I used the terms "heavy emphasis" and "high prevalence" to mean that these things exist with much greater UBIQUITY (is that even a word?) than in an average D&D campaign or D&D video game. It's not that there's no fire arrows or fire surfaces or fire barrels or fights based around verticality, etc. in regular D&D. It's that those things are typically not completely freaking everywhere to a bonkers degree. It's the PREVALENCE that is the Larianism, the almost comical level of FOCUS on these things. And I'm not saying that any of those Larianisms are even BAD. I was just responding to the person who said we couldn't really define what's Larian-specific and what's regular ol' D&D. I think we can define it, and I've attempted to do so with my list. (Although I freely admit that I probably forgot a few things.)
And my point is that ubiquity and prevalence does not necessarily make an -ism. You have tried to define it, but not everyone will accept your definition of it and the same goes for what is D&D; some person here said that D&D is about rolling for stats rather than having only stat arrays available. Like I said, good luck.
The entire reason I bring any of this up is to say that it's on a spectrum and the problem with many of the critics of BG3 is that they refuse to acknowledge that it's a spectrum to begin with and when you question them you'll find that they're internally inconsistent. Not to mention the fact that this is a different medium to begin with and it's 2020.
