@subtledoctor The only thing that can kill WoW at this point is Blizzard. Still, the more people playing WoW, the more socially acceptable it becomes for me to publicly admit that I enjoy pretending to be a Dwarf in my spare time, so I'm not too concerned about its success.
@Kilivitz "It's all about going back to what worked previously, and catering to the people they previously alienated - the long-time fans who are going to keep playing D&D no matter what novelty the videogame industry comes up with."
The problem with this is that it leads to a stagnant audience that slowly shrinks as people get tired of buying new book after new book and new people come in at a trickle. The goal is to strike a balance between appeasing your existing player base and pandering to new potential players, but that's a tricky balance to strike. 4e seems to have gone too far on the latter; it's my favorite system for getting new players into the game because the rules are more comprehensible than earlier iterations, but it also apparently alienated a lot of long time players.
@Nifft I still don't see how that would be a big problem from a programming standpoint; all you need to do is give the player a window of opportunity to reverse the effects of an action by hitting an interrupt. If it is a problem, though, you could always limit the pool of interrupts to those which are easier to adjudicate. I think the Fighter's Combat Challenge is a good example of that: Since it's activated and resolved at the targeting stage, before the attack is even rolled, there's no reversal that needs to be implemented. The attack pops up, the Fighter gets his swing in, and the enemy's attack continues (assuming it is still alive).
@Nifft I still don't see how that would be a big problem from a programming standpoint; all you need to do is give the player a window of opportunity to reverse the effects of an action by hitting an interrupt. If it is a problem, though, you could always limit the pool of interrupts to those which are easier to adjudicate. I think the Fighter's Combat Challenge is a good example of that: Since it's activated and resolved at the targeting stage, before the attack is even rolled, there's no reversal that needs to be implemented. The attack pops up, the Fighter gets his swing in, and the enemy's attack continues (assuming it is still alive).
Just for the 3 things I've described, you need to code "an opportunity to respond" at: - Attack declared - Attack roll value known - Damage known - Opponent movement
... for every PC in a party of 4 to 6. (It would have to be a party, because 4e is so heavily party-centric.)
In my experience, 4e really leverages the IMMENSE volume of verbal and non-verbal information conveyed in face-to-face table top play. I think it would be difficult to write an interface which would capture even a fraction of that information.
But, hey, if you can do it, I'll buy your game. :-)
Granted, I'm not a coder, so I have no real conception of how difficult such a prospect might be, but I do know we have examples from existing games of these sorts of systems being implemented. Project Eternity already has the Opponent movement thing down (and if I remember correctly, NWN also had AoO coded in): http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/415136
Likewise, attack declared is handled by any number of games with parry mechanics that allow you to actively initiate a parry when you see an enemy's attack coming. For attack roll value known and damage known, even BG has sufficient feedback to give you those numbers; if it gives you those numbers before it actually applies the effects, in the same way that a DM declares his attack roll value compared to your AC and the damage roll, then the player can be given an opportunity to react to that system feedback. I do agree with @Schneidend that this would work better as a turn-based system (and I would love to see a fully realized D&D TRPG as opposed to that Facebook game they made). To make things manageable in a party system, you'd have to automate the vast majority of immediate actions, probably through a system similar to Contingency or Dragon Age: Origin's Tactics. So for Shield you would set it up to automatically fire when a non-minion creature hits by a margin of 4 or less.
Probably the more difficult hurdle would be coding an AI that intelligently takes into account the fact that the party may have interrupts available.
Granted, I'm not a coder, so I have no real conception of how difficult such a prospect might be, but I do know we have examples from existing games of these sorts of systems being implemented. Project Eternity already has the Opponent movement thing down (and if I remember correctly, NWN also had AoO coded in): http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/obsidian/project-eternity/posts/415136
Likewise, attack declared is handled by any number of games with parry mechanics that allow you to actively initiate a parry when you see an enemy's attack coming. For attack roll value known and damage known, even BG has sufficient feedback to give you those numbers; if it gives you those numbers before it actually applies the effects, in the same way that a DM declares his attack roll value compared to your AC and the damage roll, then the player can be given an opportunity to react to that system feedback. I do agree with @Schneidend that this would work better as a turn-based system (and I would love to see a fully realized D&D TRPG as opposed to that Facebook game they made). To make things manageable in a party system, you'd have to automate the vast majority of immediate actions, probably through a system similar to Contingency or Dragon Age: Origin's Tactics. So for Shield you would set it up to automatically fire when a non-minion creature hits by a margin of 4 or less.
So far the things you're talking about -- opportunity attacks, disengagement attacks -- are all unlimited resources. Automating their expenditure doesn't cost the PC anything.
The 4e actions I'm talking about are limited resources. Does my Wizard use his Shield to block the Gnoll Warrior, or does he save it to use against the harder-hitting Gnoll Shaman? This is a judgement call, both paths are risky, so which risk does the PC take? IMHO, that is part of what it means to play the game. If you automate away all those decisions, you're automating away a big chunk of the fun stuff.
Project Eternity is cool, but what they're doing is taking concepts from 3e and 4e -- they're not trying to recreate 4e, just make a game which steals some of 4e's good ideas. Sure, if that's all you want to do, that's VERY possible.
A turn-based game certainly could capture more of 4e's nuances, but I still think the sheer volume of information necessary for one person to run a party would be problematic.
If it's Baldur's Gate, leave it at 2e. If you want to make some other game, go a head and update it. It wouldn't be Baldur's Gate if it had a different system.
A turn-based game certainly could capture more of 4e's nuances, but I still think the sheer volume of information necessary for one person to run a party would be problematic.
Cheers, -- N
I can't see anyone buying off on a turn based game on the Hasbro/Atari side of things. ToEE is the only real attempt at that type of game and it wasn't well received. Ok, it was a horrible wreck of bugs and half completed game, but that wasn't the only reason why. The trend these days is for real time, action oriented gaming. that is what is perceived as 'Selling' above and beyond anything else in the market. There are a few exceptions to this, but by and large most developers want fast and furious gaming to fit the masses.
On a side note, is it merely my perception? or was 4E only out for a very short period of time in comparison to the previous versions? I fully admit it might be my own perceptions as i never played 4E (nor 3E except for CRPGS). I just feel like 3E (and 3.5E) was out for a LOT longer.
The 4e actions I'm talking about are limited resources. Does my Wizard use his Shield to block the Gnoll Warrior, or does he save it to use against the harder-hitting Gnoll Shaman? This is a judgement call, both paths are risky, so which risk does the PC take? IMHO, that is part of what it means to play the game. If you automate away all those decisions, you're automating away a big chunk of the fun stuff.
I don't see the problem. Click it when you think you need it.
@Nifft Fair enough. I do think DA: O is a good example of how that sort of thing can be managed with a robust set of definable triggers (and in a system where interrupts draw on a limited resource), but then I know from personal experience that that system is rather arcane and off-putting at first until you get to learn its ins and outs (which is the exact opposite of 4e, which did a lot to make D&D less byzantine in terms of mechanics and system mastery).
I suppose the other question is, to what degree do interrupts need to be implemented to a hypothetical D&D 4e computer game for it to capture 4e's nuances?
Based on my limited playtesting, I think D&DNext would make for an excellent Action RPG.
I think it'd be a swell Iso-RPG too, don't get me wrong, but I was thinking about it today, and I think you could easily implement a VATS-esque system to use special abilities and select your target while otherwise handling combat in real-time.
@Nifft Fair enough. I do think DA: O is a good example of how that sort of thing can be managed with a robust set of definable triggers (and in a system where interrupts draw on a limited resource), but then I know from personal experience that that system is rather arcane and off-putting at first until you get to learn its ins and outs (which is the exact opposite of 4e, which did a lot to make D&D less byzantine in terms of mechanics and system mastery).
I suppose the other question is, to what degree do interrupts need to be implemented to a hypothetical D&D 4e computer game for it to capture 4e's nuances?
I haven't played any Dragon Age, but I'll give it a try if it comes around for super-cheap.
Regarding the other question, I think that's a much better direction of inquiry. I bet there are a lot of things we can steal from 4e which would benefit a future game, even if the result isn't 4e.
For example, short rest / long rest: allow the recovery of some spells & powers in the dungeon and spending healing surges with a short rest, but you can only attempt a long rest outside in the wilderness. Now dungeons gain a different sense of urgency than wilderness encounters, and healing will be easier for parties which lack a Cleric.
Using the idea of a skill challenge for social encounters is also better than actually using a skill challenge. Basically, allow everyone to contribute to dialog choices according to their best skills, rather than just having the one guy up front allowed to talk. The party can only choose one dialog option at a time, and unlike a real skill challenge there's no incentive for everyone to always try to do something every round, but it still allows you to do stuff like have a Fighter-type who's super-focused on Intimidate and actually gets to use it once in a while.
And yeah, adding more "trigger" mechanics would get some more of the feel of late 3.5e / early 4e. You might use either different trigger conditions (and longer durations), or expose more in-game information as inputs and allow the players to code up their own triggers. Those have potential to be fun and sort of slightly 4e-like.
On a side note, is it merely my perception? or was 4E only out for a very short period of time in comparison to the previous versions? I fully admit it might be my own perceptions as i never played 4E (nor 3E except for CRPGS). I just feel like 3E (and 3.5E) was out for a LOT longer.
It all depends on how you break down what constitutes an edition. Based on this timeline, 4e was out for a slightly shorter period of time than 3.5, but that depends on whether or not you count Essentials as a "4.5" and whether you count 3.5 as its own separate edition or as an extension of 3.0. 1st and 2nd edition seem to have much longer runs, but you have to take into account periods were nothing much was being published. 2nd edition only ran for 8 years if you count from the first sourcebook to TSR filing for bankruptcy, but apparently some people consider the revised core rulebooks to be a "2.5," which would shave a couple of years off that length (incidentally, the revised core rulebooks were my first introduction to D&D. I never actually played a real game outside of BG until 3e, though.).
In short, it's a more complex question than it appears at first glance, due to the nebulous definition of what constitutes an "edition" among the fanbase, but I think you could safely say that 4e had a shorter run than previous editions. "Very short" is a touch more subjective.
Based on my limited playtesting, I think D&DNext would make for an excellent Action RPG.
This is my greatest fear, that any new D&D licenses are going to become Diablo 3. In watching the early reviews of Neverwinter, the game has a very definite 'Action' focused feel to it. It isn't an RPG so much as a combat machine made to emulate MMO style of play. It appears to be nothing more than an action game with a slap of paint of "RP" elements so that it can tap into that crowd. In short, the reviewer I saw stated flat out that it felt like Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance, which (IMHO) was NOT a Baldur's Gate title.
Don't get me wrong, I love the action that happens in BG and believe that should be a part of any D&D game. Where I have a problem is when that becomes the sole and exclusive focus to the sacrifice of story and strategic and actual ROLE PLAYING elements. Diablo series is a favorite of mine, but what they did to it with D3 was wholly unforgivable in my book. And when I want to do Role Playing, I do not fire up Diablo 2. I load Baldur's gate. The two are not synonymous in that arena.
Just saying, the more they strip out the Role playing in CRPGs the less they will be Role playing games.
Well, I don't think it stops being an RPG just because the control scheme changes from tactical to over-the-shoulder. As long as the story is the primary focus, it doesn't matter if it's isometric, action, or FPS.
See, i don't have a problem with the point of view. I liked Fallout 3 and felt it had quite a lot of RPG elements. I have played most of the Elder Scrolls games and find them mainly RPG games. Even the Legend of Grimrock I found to be mostly an RPG game. Ok, a tiny stretch, but you get the point.
And I loved Diablo 2 (and gauntlet and almost all of the Action games that came before) for the ACTION they provide. But Diablo 2 is not an RPG in my mind.
It takes significantly more than the ability to select between a few skills to make it an RPG for me. And it takes a whole lot more than simply an endless onslaught of combat to make it an RPG.
Next is a lot of fun IMO. First so look forward to a edition ever since 2e.
Next strikes me as poorly designed from what my group and I have done with the playtest. It really is just an "apology" to fans of previous editions, and it isn't even as well-made as those editions. It's one thing to design a new edition, but it's quite another to stop all production on 4E so you can save face with 4E's detractors and then proceed to not even provide a good product. If you want 2E, play 2E. If you want 3.5, play Pathfinder. Next is almost certainly going to disappoint.
On a side note, is it merely my perception? or was 4E only out for a very short period of time in comparison to the previous versions? I fully admit it might be my own perceptions as i never played 4E (nor 3E except for CRPGS). I just feel like 3E (and 3.5E) was out for a LOT longer.
It all depends on how you break down what constitutes an edition. Based on this timeline, 4e was out for a slightly shorter period of time than 3.5, but that depends on whether or not you count Essentials as a "4.5" and whether you count 3.5 as its own separate edition or as an extension of 3.0. 1st and 2nd edition seem to have much longer runs, but you have to take into account periods were nothing much was being published. 2nd edition only ran for 8 years if you count from the first sourcebook to TSR filing for bankruptcy, but apparently some people consider the revised core rulebooks to be a "2.5," which would shave a couple of years off that length (incidentally, the revised core rulebooks were my first introduction to D&D. I never actually played a real game outside of BG until 3e, though.).
In short, it's a more complex question than it appears at first glance, due to the nebulous definition of what constitutes an "edition" among the fanbase, but I think you could safely say that 4e had a shorter run than previous editions. "Very short" is a touch more subjective.
So, I think the point I was trying to inquire about was that 1E lasted 8 years all told. 2E (in it's various incarnations) lasted 11 years. Regardless of how much content was coming out at the time, it had staying power and people kept on playing it (some still do). It looks like 3E (et all) lasted almost 8 years as well. 4E seems to have only held on for 4 years. Not really a long time in comparison to the other versions.
Quite what that says about 4E, i don't know because I haven't played it. What I read about it did not make me want to run out and try it like I did with other versions. It might be wonderful. if it is, then WoTC and Hasbro are at fault for poor marketing. If it was bad, then it died quickly and I'd hope that we don't see a CRPG based on it. Nor do I think we will because of the low (not necessarily negative) opinion of it.
For me, 2E was my game. I will always play games based on that. I can accept 3E as a decent system and so wouldn't mind that. 4E, "Might" be Ok, but they have a lot to prove themselves on before I am a convert. Next? who knows. I know even less about that than 4E. if it is a throw-back to 2E style? Great. If it is more of an 'Action' based RPG, it won't endear me to it at all.
@the_spyder Fair enough. From my perspective, 3.0 and 3.5 were essentially different editions, since there was a sense when 3.5 came out that the prior 3.0 splatbooks had been invalidated and were no longer usable (I saw this also in the desire to see popular feats and prestige classes "updated" in later splatbooks so they could regain that sense of legitimacy). So as far as I'm concerned, 3.0 was the "edition" with the least staying power, with 4e being roughly equal to 3.5. But I recognize that that's heavily dependent on my own personal experience.
As far as Next goes, well, based on the fact that they're doing nothing that would endear it to anyone who liked 4e, it might be up your alley. The adventure design definitely seems reminiscent of the 2e adventures I used to read in lieu of actually having a group to play with, but the last time I checked in, combat was incredibly swingy. I gave up on trying to keep up with it because the play balance varies so wildly from playtest packet to packet that it became difficult to discern exactly what they were trying to accomplish.
I think more than anything about the increasing iterations of the game that I find most objectionable is the fact that classes seem to blur and merge and become generic. In 2E, there were clear divisions between what any one class could do in comparison to another. That went away to a large extent in 3E such that you could have a decent character that could do a little bit of everything with no problem. That was actually encouraged and it seemed to me that the focus went away from "Party" to individual balance. That's fine as far as it goes, but it is a much different approach than I felt comfortable with.
"What I have read" (and subject to it only being that, 2nd hand at best) about 4E was that they took it even further and that the classes were largely capable of doing the same things. Each class had instance abilities that they could use during combat, etc.., but that they largely were different 'Effects' and little else. A fighter swung a sword and a wizard cast a spell. Damage was the same. This could be 100% false, but it was the sense I got. If it is completely false, I put that down to WoTC and the marketing they did (either that or I am an idiot, a possibility I don't discount) or didn't do. So again, I would require a lot of convincing. Add to that the fact that 4E only lasted 4 years and got loads of negative feedback and you can see where someone like me might stand.
To be completely fair, it took a long time for me to adopt to even liking 3E (3.5E really). So it might just be me not liking change. But even liking 3E, I still feel it was huge steps towards removing "Party" and focusing on individual capabilities and achievements. And that I find to be not the direction I would go.
@the_spyder Fair enough. From my perspective, 3.0 and 3.5 were essentially different editions, since there was a sense when 3.5 came out that the prior 3.0 splatbooks had been invalidated and were no longer usable (I saw this also in the desire to see popular feats and prestige classes "updated" in later splatbooks so they could regain that sense of legitimacy). So as far as I'm concerned, 3.0 was the "edition" with the least staying power, with 4e being roughly equal to 3.5. But I recognize that that's heavily dependent on my own personal experience.
IMHO it's entirely correct to see 3.0e as different from 3.5e. In many ways, 3.5e was a more radical departure than 3.0e, since 3.0e did nothing but rationalize and make uniform all the sacred cows of previous editions, while 3.5e weeded out the blatantly sick sacred cows and replaced them.
In 2E, there were clear divisions between what any one class could do in comparison to another. That went away to a large extent in 3E such that you could have a decent character that could do a little bit of everything with no problem. That was actually encouraged and it seemed to me that the focus went away from "Party" to individual balance.
Mmm. In 2e and in 3e, the only tool for "party balance" was niche protection, and even that fell apart when a spellcaster was involved.
In 2e, everyone could climb a wall with an ability check or a spell. In 3e, the rules for climbing walls were made uniform, and you knew exactly how fast (or how difficult) it was for every class to climb any particular wall.
"What I have read" (and subject to it only being that, 2nd hand at best) about 4E was that they took it even further and that the classes were largely capable of doing the same things. Each class had instance abilities that they could use during combat, etc.., but that they largely were different 'Effects' and little else. A fighter swung a sword and a wizard cast a spell. Damage was the same. This could be 100% false, but it was the sense I got.
WotC made every class presentation the same, so it's easier for n00bs to pick up on. This was a success: 4e really is easier to teach.
The classes do feel different in play.
However, in 4e the PHB reads like a DVR instruction manual. There's nowhere near the level of entertaining prose as we got in earlier editions. That was a huge turn-off for a lot of people, even if the game rules worked fine.
@the_spyder@nifft Arguably, 4e put the emphasis back on the party by drawing explicit attention to the usual niches an adventuring party needs and making it explicit that a group of characters needs to work together cooperatively in order to adequately fill those niches (while also restraining spellcasters from running roughshod over those niches through access to hundreds of utility and combat spells).
Unfortunately, the power system made it difficult to make classes obviously distinguishable from each other, especially when they occupied the same niche. Making truly unique powers required creating ad hoc special status effects which could get unwieldy and worked against the goal of having an elegant, easily teachable system. And while I played Fighters, Paladins, and Wardens (all classes occupying the same niche) that all felt different from each other in practical play, those differences weren't particularly noticeable until you were actually playing at the table, and even then there was noticeable samey-ness in the power selection for those classes.
And, as Nifft points out, there was a general lack of evocative setting information, which made the reading a bit more stale.
Baldur's Gate should always be 2ed but I don't think there should be a BG3 if they are going down the 4ed route. Besides if there is a BG3 game it would be a completely separate adventure from the previous two instalments.
Much easier to start with a new setting with a new ruleset. I'm not fan of IWD2 or 3ed but I appreciated that it tried something completely different from the Baldur's Gate series. The regions east of Thay/Rashemen or The Moonsea would be great places to set a game in. I still have childhood memories of the 1989 game Hillsfar, so I have a soft spot for The Moonsea.
The only real benefit I see in making a Baldur's Gate 4ed game is for the franchise recognition. But I think it would yield the most creative results if a blank slate was used.
Anyways, if Overhaul can expand Throne of Bhaal with sorely needed content.... then that is pretty much a decent BG3. The dream would be to split ToB from BG2 and further develop it as a stand alone title as the original developers intended. But that's not going to happen.
@the_spyder@nifft Arguably, 4e put the emphasis back on the party by drawing explicit attention to the usual niches an adventuring party needs and making it explicit that a group of characters needs to work together cooperatively in order to adequately fill those niches (while also restraining spellcasters from running roughshod over those niches through access to hundreds of utility and combat spells).
One interesting thing about 4e was that it made the party central without having to resort to "niche protection".
Niche protection is lazy design, and it leads to a vicious cycle of bad design constraints.
@Mordeus Baldur's Gate is part of the Forgotten Realms IP, which is pretty much inextricably tied to D&D. There would never be a "new," non-D&D system in a BG game. If you mean just a new edition, how new do you need it to be? 4E is the newest complete edition available, as Next is still in its confused playtest state.
4e is a mixed bag for me. I like the relative freedom of having a lot of different choices available for classes, style of play, etc., but the "powers" mechanic is problematic.
Powers end up being too much like an abstract "video-gamey" way of giving all of the classes the same level of utility in combat and balancing them across levels.
The problem is that there are a lot of choices, but they end up feeling all the same in the end. People want to feel unique. They want their character to feel distinct from the others in the party.
Also, some of the powers just feel weird, like obvious attempts to create advantage within a tactical table-top miniature game, and they don't come across as organic extensions of the mythic/symbolic role of the character, but rather as fantasy bumper cars™.
4e is a mixed bag for me. I like the relative freedom of having a lot of different choices available for classes, style of play, etc., but the "powers" mechanic is problematic.
Powers end up being too much like an abstract "video-gamey" way of giving all of the classes the same level of utility in combat and balancing them across levels.
The problem is that there are a lot of choices, but they end up feeling all the same in the end. People want to feel unique. They want their character to feel distinct from the others in the party.
Also, some of the powers just feel weird, like obvious attempts to create advantage within a tactical table-top miniature game, and they don't come across as organic extensions of the mythic/symbolic role of the character, but rather as fantasy bumper cars™.
This is what I had read as well. As to how true it is, I don't know but I kind of got the feeling that regardless of what class you picked, you had a certain number of uses of combat specific "powers" and daily specific "powers" but that at the end of the day they were largely just a different effect or way of doing exactly what every other class could do. It read to me like it was made for video gaming rather than RPG. Basically I imagined it to be a slightly more complex version of Gauntlet. I am not sure how accurate that is, but if it is even close then I don't want to play 4E at all.
"To me", classes shouldn't be balanced against each other on a single encounter basis. They should be a balance of utility as represented by an entire adventure. Basically their spells should be much more powerful because they have limited use. You boil down the power so that during an individual encounter they net out and you lose something (IMHO).
Comments
@Kilivitz "It's all about going back to what worked previously, and catering to the people they previously alienated - the long-time fans who are going to keep playing D&D no matter what novelty the videogame industry comes up with."
The problem with this is that it leads to a stagnant audience that slowly shrinks as people get tired of buying new book after new book and new people come in at a trickle. The goal is to strike a balance between appeasing your existing player base and pandering to new potential players, but that's a tricky balance to strike. 4e seems to have gone too far on the latter; it's my favorite system for getting new players into the game because the rules are more comprehensible than earlier iterations, but it also apparently alienated a lot of long time players.
@Nifft I still don't see how that would be a big problem from a programming standpoint; all you need to do is give the player a window of opportunity to reverse the effects of an action by hitting an interrupt. If it is a problem, though, you could always limit the pool of interrupts to those which are easier to adjudicate. I think the Fighter's Combat Challenge is a good example of that: Since it's activated and resolved at the targeting stage, before the attack is even rolled, there's no reversal that needs to be implemented. The attack pops up, the Fighter gets his swing in, and the enemy's attack continues (assuming it is still alive).
- Attack declared
- Attack roll value known
- Damage known
- Opponent movement
... for every PC in a party of 4 to 6. (It would have to be a party, because 4e is so heavily party-centric.)
In my experience, 4e really leverages the IMMENSE volume of verbal and non-verbal information conveyed in face-to-face table top play. I think it would be difficult to write an interface which would capture even a fraction of that information.
But, hey, if you can do it, I'll buy your game. :-)
Likewise, attack declared is handled by any number of games with parry mechanics that allow you to actively initiate a parry when you see an enemy's attack coming. For attack roll value known and damage known, even BG has sufficient feedback to give you those numbers; if it gives you those numbers before it actually applies the effects, in the same way that a DM declares his attack roll value compared to your AC and the damage roll, then the player can be given an opportunity to react to that system feedback. I do agree with @Schneidend that this would work better as a turn-based system (and I would love to see a fully realized D&D TRPG as opposed to that Facebook game they made). To make things manageable in a party system, you'd have to automate the vast majority of immediate actions, probably through a system similar to Contingency or Dragon Age: Origin's Tactics. So for Shield you would set it up to automatically fire when a non-minion creature hits by a margin of 4 or less.
Probably the more difficult hurdle would be coding an AI that intelligently takes into account the fact that the party may have interrupts available.
The 4e actions I'm talking about are limited resources. Does my Wizard use his Shield to block the Gnoll Warrior, or does he save it to use against the harder-hitting Gnoll Shaman? This is a judgement call, both paths are risky, so which risk does the PC take? IMHO, that is part of what it means to play the game. If you automate away all those decisions, you're automating away a big chunk of the fun stuff.
Project Eternity is cool, but what they're doing is taking concepts from 3e and 4e -- they're not trying to recreate 4e, just make a game which steals some of 4e's good ideas. Sure, if that's all you want to do, that's VERY possible.
A turn-based game certainly could capture more of 4e's nuances, but I still think the sheer volume of information necessary for one person to run a party would be problematic.
Cheers, -- N
On a side note, is it merely my perception? or was 4E only out for a very short period of time in comparison to the previous versions? I fully admit it might be my own perceptions as i never played 4E (nor 3E except for CRPGS). I just feel like 3E (and 3.5E) was out for a LOT longer.
I suppose the other question is, to what degree do interrupts need to be implemented to a hypothetical D&D 4e computer game for it to capture 4e's nuances?
I think it'd be a swell Iso-RPG too, don't get me wrong, but I was thinking about it today, and I think you could easily implement a VATS-esque system to use special abilities and select your target while otherwise handling combat in real-time.
Regarding the other question, I think that's a much better direction of inquiry. I bet there are a lot of things we can steal from 4e which would benefit a future game, even if the result isn't 4e.
For example, short rest / long rest: allow the recovery of some spells & powers in the dungeon and spending healing surges with a short rest, but you can only attempt a long rest outside in the wilderness. Now dungeons gain a different sense of urgency than wilderness encounters, and healing will be easier for parties which lack a Cleric.
Using the idea of a skill challenge for social encounters is also better than actually using a skill challenge. Basically, allow everyone to contribute to dialog choices according to their best skills, rather than just having the one guy up front allowed to talk. The party can only choose one dialog option at a time, and unlike a real skill challenge there's no incentive for everyone to always try to do something every round, but it still allows you to do stuff like have a Fighter-type who's super-focused on Intimidate and actually gets to use it once in a while.
And yeah, adding more "trigger" mechanics would get some more of the feel of late 3.5e / early 4e. You might use either different trigger conditions (and longer durations), or expose more in-game information as inputs and allow the players to code up their own triggers. Those have potential to be fun and sort of slightly 4e-like.
In short, it's a more complex question than it appears at first glance, due to the nebulous definition of what constitutes an "edition" among the fanbase, but I think you could safely say that 4e had a shorter run than previous editions. "Very short" is a touch more subjective.
Next is a lot of fun IMO. First so look forward to a edition ever since 2e.
Don't get me wrong, I love the action that happens in BG and believe that should be a part of any D&D game. Where I have a problem is when that becomes the sole and exclusive focus to the sacrifice of story and strategic and actual ROLE PLAYING elements. Diablo series is a favorite of mine, but what they did to it with D3 was wholly unforgivable in my book. And when I want to do Role Playing, I do not fire up Diablo 2. I load Baldur's gate. The two are not synonymous in that arena.
Just saying, the more they strip out the Role playing in CRPGs the less they will be Role playing games.
And I loved Diablo 2 (and gauntlet and almost all of the Action games that came before) for the ACTION they provide. But Diablo 2 is not an RPG in my mind.
It takes significantly more than the ability to select between a few skills to make it an RPG for me. And it takes a whole lot more than simply an endless onslaught of combat to make it an RPG.
Quite what that says about 4E, i don't know because I haven't played it. What I read about it did not make me want to run out and try it like I did with other versions. It might be wonderful. if it is, then WoTC and Hasbro are at fault for poor marketing. If it was bad, then it died quickly and I'd hope that we don't see a CRPG based on it. Nor do I think we will because of the low (not necessarily negative) opinion of it.
For me, 2E was my game. I will always play games based on that. I can accept 3E as a decent system and so wouldn't mind that. 4E, "Might" be Ok, but they have a lot to prove themselves on before I am a convert. Next? who knows. I know even less about that than 4E. if it is a throw-back to 2E style? Great. If it is more of an 'Action' based RPG, it won't endear me to it at all.
As far as Next goes, well, based on the fact that they're doing nothing that would endear it to anyone who liked 4e, it might be up your alley. The adventure design definitely seems reminiscent of the 2e adventures I used to read in lieu of actually having a group to play with, but the last time I checked in, combat was incredibly swingy. I gave up on trying to keep up with it because the play balance varies so wildly from playtest packet to packet that it became difficult to discern exactly what they were trying to accomplish.
"What I have read" (and subject to it only being that, 2nd hand at best) about 4E was that they took it even further and that the classes were largely capable of doing the same things. Each class had instance abilities that they could use during combat, etc.., but that they largely were different 'Effects' and little else. A fighter swung a sword and a wizard cast a spell. Damage was the same. This could be 100% false, but it was the sense I got. If it is completely false, I put that down to WoTC and the marketing they did (either that or I am an idiot, a possibility I don't discount) or didn't do. So again, I would require a lot of convincing. Add to that the fact that 4E only lasted 4 years and got loads of negative feedback and you can see where someone like me might stand.
To be completely fair, it took a long time for me to adopt to even liking 3E (3.5E really). So it might just be me not liking change. But even liking 3E, I still feel it was huge steps towards removing "Party" and focusing on individual capabilities and achievements. And that I find to be not the direction I would go.
In 2e, everyone could climb a wall with an ability check or a spell.
In 3e, the rules for climbing walls were made uniform, and you knew exactly how fast (or how difficult) it was for every class to climb any particular wall. WotC made every class presentation the same, so it's easier for n00bs to pick up on. This was a success: 4e really is easier to teach.
The classes do feel different in play.
However, in 4e the PHB reads like a DVR instruction manual. There's nowhere near the level of entertaining prose as we got in earlier editions. That was a huge turn-off for a lot of people, even if the game rules worked fine.
Unfortunately, the power system made it difficult to make classes obviously distinguishable from each other, especially when they occupied the same niche. Making truly unique powers required creating ad hoc special status effects which could get unwieldy and worked against the goal of having an elegant, easily teachable system. And while I played Fighters, Paladins, and Wardens (all classes occupying the same niche) that all felt different from each other in practical play, those differences weren't particularly noticeable until you were actually playing at the table, and even then there was noticeable samey-ness in the power selection for those classes.
And, as Nifft points out, there was a general lack of evocative setting information, which made the reading a bit more stale.
Much easier to start with a new setting with a new ruleset. I'm not fan of IWD2 or 3ed but I appreciated that it tried something completely different from the Baldur's Gate series. The regions east of Thay/Rashemen or The Moonsea would be great places to set a game in. I still have childhood memories of the 1989 game Hillsfar, so I have a soft spot for The Moonsea.
The only real benefit I see in making a Baldur's Gate 4ed game is for the franchise recognition. But I think it would yield the most creative results if a blank slate was used.
Anyways, if Overhaul can expand Throne of Bhaal with sorely needed content.... then that is pretty much a decent BG3. The dream would be to split ToB from BG2 and further develop it as a stand alone title as the original developers intended. But that's not going to happen.
Niche protection is lazy design, and it leads to a vicious cycle of bad design constraints.
Baldur's Gate is part of the Forgotten Realms IP, which is pretty much inextricably tied to D&D. There would never be a "new," non-D&D system in a BG game. If you mean just a new edition, how new do you need it to be? 4E is the newest complete edition available, as Next is still in its confused playtest state.
4e is a mixed bag for me. I like the relative freedom of having a lot of different choices available for classes, style of play, etc., but the "powers" mechanic is problematic.
Powers end up being too much like an abstract "video-gamey" way of giving all of the classes the same level of utility in combat and balancing them across levels.
The problem is that there are a lot of choices, but they end up feeling all the same in the end. People want to feel unique. They want their character to feel distinct from the others in the party.
Also, some of the powers just feel weird, like obvious attempts to create advantage within a tactical table-top miniature game, and they don't come across as organic extensions of the mythic/symbolic role of the character, but rather as fantasy bumper cars™.
"To me", classes shouldn't be balanced against each other on a single encounter basis. They should be a balance of utility as represented by an entire adventure. Basically their spells should be much more powerful because they have limited use. You boil down the power so that during an individual encounter they net out and you lose something (IMHO).