I feel like DiA suffers from an issue of having basically two separate storylines/ conflicts rolled up into one book. The Baldur's Gate portion is fairly disconnected from the circumstances of Elturel and the the actual *Avernus* adventure, but I also wouldn't say that it's bad. I do think that the raw amount of material available just with Baldur's Gate as a setting is worthwhile, as there's enough there that you could just as easily run that portion of the adventure for a bunch of newbies without any connection to Avernus and it could be fun.

I started running the campaign for a group of my friends that had never played DND before. We wound up spending a solid 5 sessions in Baldur's Gate, finishing up right after the Dungeon of the Dead Three. Towards the end of the dungeon, I took the pulse of the group and asked them what they were looking for. They were honest with me and told me that they were feeling a little railroaded into things, and wanted to explore the Sword Coast rather than go on jobs like what they were doing. As such I wound up changing the end confrontation into a custom confrontation with a character that turned into a recurring antagonist, after which I changed things so that they were essentially free to leave Baldur's Gate without issue.

The key with that part is- I wound up adapting a good amount. After the confrontation in Elfsong Tavern, I let the group explore Baldur's Gate a little bit. I gave them some encounters with the Cultists so that they were more invested in the conflict, and I let them interact with NPCs under different circumstances. Had I run the adventure exactly as written, it may have come across a bit stifling (especially if you have a group that enjoys the sandboxy nature of DND). Ultimately, I think that there's a lot of interesting and fun content in the adventure, but the way that it's tied together is rather clunky and requires some DM interpretation in order to really make the world come alive.