Hence why besdies Planescape: Torment my favorfite D and D games are the KOTOR games even though I'm not a fan of Star Wars. They made enough modifications to make the D and D style of gameplay more fun. Getting rid of memorizing spells and replacing it with a magic/force point system for instance.

I juss bought Fallout! Looks so awsome! But I'm still deciding between Fallout 1, Broken Sword 1, or BG2 is gonna be my next game after my current BG1 session, which isn't gonna end any time soon. Or I might even choose another game! I dunno yet!

Anyways, if this is any help to you, I finished Planescape: Torment in a little over 2 and a half months, and in my current BG1 playthrough, I'm in my 6th month and not close to finishing it yet (and I haven't even touched the Tales of the Sword Coast expansion yet either).

PS-T has more dialogue in all respects, whereas BG1 has more character customization in all respects, for both your Player Character & your party members than PS-T does.

BG2 has more dialogue & character customization (for both your PC & party members of course) in all respects than BG1, but not more dialogue than PS-T. And BG2 is the longest game of the three (if you do most of the sidequests away from the main plot, of course), and can be played as a stand-alone game away from BG1, if you fancy that.

I've replayed the BG series numerous times, and while I had an awsome PS-T playthrough (enough that I gave the game 5 stars on GoG, which it fully deserves and then some), I don't believe I'll ever replay it, at least not in the forseeable future. I still recommend all cRPG players to give PS-T at least one full go w/o any other game (or even novel!) taking away your attention from it, b/c it's that damn good. But I personally find the replayability in the BG series more appealing to my tastes.

I've done my best to help you make your decision, but I won't make your decision for you.

Be sure to have a look at the PST mods thread so you can run it at high resolution and all fancy

I'd get them both.

But I'd probably start of with Planescape first since it'll get you used to the D&D 2nd edition setup before you go to Baldurs Gate.

Both.

Like what Whiteblade said, PST has among the best story in RPGs, while BG saga is epic in both depth and gameplay.

Both have interesting and particularly memorable characters and settings.

PT - story is much better and MUSIC is just terrific (composed by Mark Morgan – guy responsible for Fallout soundtrack).

Can't say I agree with that. The Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale games work very well for what they were attempting to do., And Temple of Elemental Evil has some of the best turn based combat I've ever seen in an RPG. It's just everything else about the game is pretty broken.

They're very different games, despite the fact that they use the same engine and AD&D 2E rules -- Torment, as said, is a story and dialog heavy game and one of the best (arguably the best) in that genre. The Planescape setting is also unlike anything you'll witness in other games, past or present, and makes the story all the more unique. The whole game is just a unique experience, really, and should be part of any CRPG fan's collection as it is something the likes of which we'll probably never see again.

Baldur's Gate, combined with its sequel and their expansions, form a sweeping, classic fantasy epic that deserves and lives up to all the praise it has gotten over the years. The story might not be as deep as Torment's, but unforgettably epic encounters and great party-based strategic combat make up for that (Torment's combat seems almost an afterthought, really). Baldur's Gate II also has one of the best villains in video game history, and his story is definitely worth experiencing.

My advice? Get all three -- Torment, BG: The Original Saga and BG2: Complete.

I know that Baldur's Gate 2 is part of every gamer's basic education, but not playing Planescape ought to be criminal. It's like... hmm... I'm out of metaphors.

Go for Planescape. Push for its curricular inclusion.

IWD, ToEE and Bg kinda.. make it work.. but it's still anything but ideal.

One thing to consider is I am a D&D nerd. I know 3e/3.5 in an out, and I know enough about 2E to understand it's mechanics.

D&D mechanics are built for a couple of fights a day, each one with only a few foes (until late game at least), it's built for spellcasters to consider their options as to whether or not it's a good idea to use their best spells in a fight, because they might need them later. Even the toughest heroes don't have all that many HP compared to weapon damage at low levels. And let's not forget the slow leveling speed of D&D.

In a tabletop game, these mechanics work.. usually. In a video game, they don't work as well, especially not combat driven ones. ToEE: very combat driven. IWD: pretty combat driven. BG: I dunno, seemed fairly combat driven to me.

In a tabletop game, you might fight 2 groups of 4 foes in a day, with a party of 4. In video games you'll get that in 5 minutes. This leads to, especially if you have mages, needing to pretty much sleep every 5 minutes, which is really dang annoying. Also the number of foes you get hit with, even at really low levels, can with just a few lucky shots tear your melee fighters to pieces.

And because the number of foes is so greatly increased, in most video games, they cut the XP earned down to a bare fraction of what it would be in the tabletop game.

It -works-, but it doesn't work WELL. The system they use is handicapped from the get-go for video games. A few tweaks to the system, and you'd have a fairly nice setup for a tactical combat game. Vanilla though, it's pretty weak.

For a D&D based video game in 2 or 3E, what they would be best off doing:
Initial HP boost, and slight boost to HP/level. (start with 20+max HD, get max HD every level)
'Mana' variant for spell casting, with the mana recovering on it's own.
Slight buff for stats. (something akin to a higher point buy, or a couple of passive +Xs that you could distribute once you had your stats.)

This would not really change any of the core mechanics of the game, but would make them much more suited for a combat heavy video game.

I don't play D and D in real life cause I am not cool enough. However, I would also think that in table top D and D if you have a kind dungeon master and if the enemies get a cheap shot or whatever the Dungeon Master could come up with some kind of excuse or rationalization to protect the player characters.

To be honest, it depends. If you like reading many descriptions, if you like non standard fantasy worlds, go for PT

If you want some more fighting, more epic, go for Baldur's Gate 1 or 2. (definitely 2)
I would say this is bs. Because so many dicerolls makes D&D perfect for video games. Baldur's Gate 1 and 2, Icewind Dale 1 and 2 , Temple of the elemental evil, are perfect examples.

Both.
Masterpieces.
Just buy and play both.

Perfect examples of exactly the point I was making maybe.

For your consideration: In D&D based video games, characters will start with at absolute maximum.. well, in ToEE you could feasibly get 23 HP, generally though most will start with 15 or less. Spellcasters will frequently start with 6 or less.

Your average Kobold armed with a short sword will deal 1d4-1 damage or 1d6 if the've got a crossbow, your average rat will do about 1d3 damage. Generally around first level, these will need between a 8 and a 15 to hit, depending on the character in question. Spellcasters tending towards being easier to hit, of course. It stands to reason that it doesn't take much to drop first level characters, especially casters.

And to make matter worse, if we take BG and we roll a caster.. it only takes one lucky crossbow shot for game over.

Paired with the fact that due to D&D magic system potions are not cheap or plentiful usually, and that HP doesn't restore itself at any kind of 'reasonable' rate (as far as video game standpoints go), it makes it very hazardous to all your character's healths to be in a D&D based game.

On the other hand, we can take a look at games like Arcanum or Fallout, which are very similar games (as far as their overarching play style and the target audience), in these games, the main character starts out with decent hit points, even when they're a less combat focused character, and is far less prone to die due to one minor stroke of luck.

Or Planescape, which is derived from D&D 2E, but uses a highly modified system, making the game actually almost user friendly.

Don't get me wrong, ToEE and IWD are a couple of my favorite games, and those two actually do a very good job of capturing the style and feel of D&D in a video game. That still does not make the mechanics of D&D good for a video game, they just happened to do well with what they were given.

And I don't understand your meaning. I was dying plenty of times in Bg 1 because of a single ogre morgenstern blow or single fire arrow shot by a kobold and it was fun for me to finally beat'em! ;)

I can't see why games in which you die often and easy are considered to be bad?

but when your character develops, and you see them growing stronger, with powerful spells and abilities, you're totally rewarded for first difficulties.