I didn’t say that interaction between MC and party members is especially well done in BG1. It’s the BG2 which elevated this side on another level. My point was merely that I totally can see why people followed BG1 MC: even traveling with him for some limited time was obviously enough to get the idea that the dude at least is interesting to hang with (I personally don’t see a problem to switch on my imagination and imagine how say Branven hears him sleepwalking and speaking with his father while spending a night in the forest and on the next morning he is able to slow poison). Would have been silly to expect something like BG1 to provide all the context of the complex relationships existed in the party. But I really liked it this way. Broad field for imagination.
At which point you are using your imagination to make up for what is actually not in the game. BG1 does not have much reactivity towards the main character. This is not limited solely to charname - companion interactions, although sometimes the lack of that becomes very evident, e.g. if you let one of the "paired" companions die, leave their body lying somewhere and the other doesn't care. But it's also about the lack of alternative paths & endings, because as a result, it doesn't matter what character you create. No charname is ever too dumb or repulsive to lead the party to victory, because there is only one way to achieve victory in the game, and that is to kill the bad guy.
To be fair, I think this lack of character restrictions is another factor why the BG saga was so popular. I think the majority of players don't like the choices in games be too limiting, and prefer when their character can potentially achieve everything in the game. Even if they use charisma as a dump stat.
It such a great anti-hero adventure. And the ending - the really good ending - is so bittersweet.
My favourite ending isn't even the endgame, it is when you break the rules to break the eternal cycle; that is, goad the Lady to permanently kill TNO.
