Must the game explain itself? It's a third installment in a series, taking place in an established setting. A lot has changed since BG1 and 2, but the basic knowledge (e.g. about Baldur's Gate the city) from those games is still applicable to BG3. You don't pick up a random adventure module and expect it to explain every minute detail, like how common druids are, about its world. [...]
I understand that for a lot of people BG3 is going to be their first BG game, and probably their first DnD game, but I can't say that modeling dialogue to cater to people who pick up the third book in a series and then act surprised when they don't understand what's going on in the world is a good idea. A baseline level of knowledge has to be assumed.
I wouldn't classify BG3 as the 3rd installment in a series. Yes, technically it has "3" in the title, but it seems to be an entirely separate plot a century+ after the original saga, 3 whole editions later (each of which involves significant changes to the D&D world). In movie terms, I'd call it a reboot instead of a sequel, and reboots are supposed to stand on their own merits and not require watchers to know much about the settings/characters.
