Or maybe he (you said John, but did you mean Josh?) doesn’t acknowledge it because, like me and those I’ve talked to, he considers it to be a non-factor; and there’s a very good reason to change your setting up for the sequel so that it doesn’t feel like you’ve already played that game. The lore already had these regions baked into them, and it still fits the definition of high fantasy even if it’s also in a pirate setting.

Larian had zero reason to change a winning formula so I’m not sure why that factors in your mind?

Because Baldur’s Gate has historically been RtwP, so deciding that the third one didn’t need to be is a good indication of which way the wind is blowing with regards to those designs. Pillars of Eternity was, of course, pitched as an unofficial continuation of Baldur’s Gate’s legacy before BG3 happened, which is why the marketing copy for it says things like “gather your party” and “venture forth”. I haven’t played the recent Pathfinder games, but I understand they came to the same conclusion that Obsidian did by adding turn-based after the fact.

I’m not doubting that the setting affected your choice, but at large, I’m not convinced it was a significant factor in the game’s success.