Anyone know if WotSC could allow 2e rules for bg3?

mashedtaters

I'm sorry if this topic has been done to death, but I don't think I could even look at the game if it was 4e. I would be sick to my stomach.

I was thinking it over, and I believe that it would be impossible to obtain 3e or 3.5e because WotSC is trying to drown out the Pathfinder competition. Thank goodness Pathfinder is holding its own, because I hate 4e.

I suppose overhaul might be able to get something going with Paizo. I might be able to play BG3 with Pathfinder rules, but it would still take some serious consideration--I would have to argue myself into it. Becayse if I wanted to play 3.5e I'd play NWN.

Speculation: I wonder if WotSC is the reason Bioware got away from DND rules in the first place?

IMHO, 2e is the only way to go for any BG game. Don't get me wrong, I like IWD2, but I couldn't stand how much 3rd edition nerfed the ranger and the paladin. Again, sick to my stomach.

Any thoughts?

teancum42

I think the general concensus is that WoTC certainly could allow BG3 to use the 2e ruleset, but it is very unlikely that they will. A big part of the benefit that WoTC would derive from the production of BG3 is that it might draw new players to their game, to D&D. As such, they would want people to be drawn to the most recent version of the game so they could sell more product.

On the bright side, for you at least, it is really unlikely that it would be 4e in any case. WoTC is currently developing a new edition for D&D, and if Overhaul manages to secure the rights to do BG3, it seems like it will probably be using those new rules.

Personally, I liked 4e. It was certainly a shift, but I think it had some great innovations that get lost in all the hate. One of the criticisms that is often leveled at 4e is that it feels like it was built to be a computer game. If that is true, doesn't it follow that building a computer game based on that ruleset would work pretty well? (A modified version of the ruleset at least, it would be pretty tough to deal with all the 'interrupts')

Anywho, I'm just going to leave my fingers crossed that BG:EE and BG2:EE are successful enough that BG3 gets made at all. I'm very excited about the reemergence of the Isometric RPG (like Project Eternity, Torment: Tides of Numenera, and Wasteland 2) and I'd love to see BG3 join that party, whatever ruleset it ended up using.

TJ_Hooker

Seeing as how we don't even know whether BG3 is going to happen (and even if it does it will likely be a while) it seems premature to start debating what edition it should/will use, to me at least.

Lemernis

All we have been told thus far is to expect BG3 (if there is one) to use whatever ruleset is on the shelf at the time of release. Depending on how long it takes to design the game (if it gets made), that will probably be Edition Next. (Unless BG3's development takes so many years that it's released concurrently with a subsequent edition to Next.)

But Edition next is at least described as modular and customizable such that it allows players to craft their own ruleset (i.e., accommodates that many use house rules anyway). So one would think it might be able to include key elements of 2nd edition AD&D and kits. But that said, I honestly know nothing of how this reported modularity of Edition Next actually works in practice, nor how much freedom to customize there really is.

rakovsky

You seriously get "sick to your stomach" over a ruleset used in a computer game. I suggest some self-reflection because that is extremely petty. In a world full of sweatshops and child soldiers being so deeply disturbed by which edition of DnD a game uses is absurd.

I can understand why people wouldn't like 4th edition but isn't the complaint always that it feels like a computer game? Well that just means we have the perfect chance to try it in that setting. I'd love a 4e game, though it looks like we won't get one. Next is going to be a disaster though.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

mashedtaters

teancum42 said:

I think the general concensus is that WoTC certainly could allow BG3 to use the 2e ruleset, but it is very unlikely that they will. A big part of the benefit that WoTC would derive from the production of BG3 is that it might draw new players to their game, to D&D. As such, they would want people to be drawn to the most recent version of the game so they could sell more product.

On the bright side, for you at least, it is really unlikely that it would be 4e in any case. WoTC is currently developing a new edition for D&D, and if Overhaul manages to secure the rights to do BG3, it seems like it will probably be using those new rules.

Personally, I liked 4e. It was certainly a shift, but I think it had some great innovations that get lost in all the hate. One of the criticisms that is often leveled at 4e is that it feels like it was built to be a computer game. If that is true, doesn't it follow that building a computer game based on that ruleset would work pretty well? (A modified version of the ruleset at least, it would be pretty tough to deal with all the 'interrupts')

Anywho, I'm just going to leave my fingers crossed that BG:EE and BG2:EE are successful enough that BG3 gets made at all. I'm very excited about the reemergence of the Isometric RPG (like Project Eternity, Torment: Tides of Numenera, and Wasteland 2) and I'd love to see BG3 join that party, whatever ruleset it ended up using.

TJ_Hooker said:

Seeing as how we don't even know whether BG3 is going to happen (and even if it does it will likely be a while) it seems premature to start debating what edition it should/will use, to me at least.

Yes, I know. It's just speculation. The problem I had with 4e is that the game feels like it is only rules and no roleplaying. It's like they took the "role" out of rpg.

mashedtaters

Lemernis said:

All we have been told thus far is to expect BG3 (if there is one) to use whatever ruleset is on the shelf at the time of release. Depending on how long it takes to design the game (if it gets made), that will probably be Edition Next. (Unless BG3's development takes so many years that it's released concurrently with a subsequent edition to Next.)

But Edition next is at least described as modular and customizable such that it allows players to craft their own ruleset (i.e., accommodates that many use house rules anyway). So one would think it might be able to include key elements of 2nd edition AD&D and kits. But that said, I honestly know nothing of how this reported modularity of Edition Next actually works in practice, nor how much freedom to customize there really is.

I would probably be satisfied with a dnd engine like that. That's one of the things I loved about 2e, despited the complicated rules, was that you could make your own house rules without seriously affecting the balance of the campaign. Of course THAC0 still makes my head hurt, but in a computer game all those calculations are done for you so you don't have to worry about them.

mashedtaters

rakovsky said:

You seriously get "sick to your stomach" over a ruleset used in a computer game. I suggest some self-reflection because that is extremely petty. In a world full of sweatshops and child soldiers being so deeply disturbed by which edition of DnD a game uses is absurd.

I can understand why people wouldn't like 4th edition but isn't the complaint always that it feels like a computer game? Well that just means we have the perfect chance to try it in that setting. I'd love a 4e game, though it looks like we won't get one. Next is going to be a disaster though.

Whoah, chill out man. It was just a little bit of dry, metaphorical humor. Absurd is kind of the point. Be a lover, not a hater, it's easier on your soul.

As for making 4e computer game, I think they should leave BG3 out of it, if ever they make one.

atcDave

I think the common wisdom is that WotC would insist on whatever the current rules set is for any new game, and I agree that is most likely. BUT, they have been republishing a lot of old 1E material. Maybe, just maybe, someone over there has some interest in AD&D legacy and could be persuaded that the BG brand is a good place to stick with an older rules set. Its a long shot, but not impossible.

Kilivitz

@atcDave that's an excellent point. If I'm not mistaken, the 2e rules are also getting a deluxe re-release in a few months. I haven't considered this when I said the chances of BG3 using AD&D were precisely zero.

On the other hand, BG is a pretty strong brand (certainly not if you compare it to Halo, GTA and so on, but still strong enough to make a little noise 15 years later) and WotC might consider it too valuable to keep it on the "legacy" product line.

atcDave

Kilivitz said:

@atcDave that's an excellent point. If I'm not mistaken, the 2e rules are also getting a deluxe re-release in a few months. I haven't considered this when I said the chances of BG3 using AD&D were precisely zero.

On the other hand, BG is a pretty strong brand (certainly not if you compare it to Halo, GTA and so on, but still strong enough to make a little noise 15 years later) and WotC might consider it too valuable to keep it on the "legacy" product line.

I didn't realize they were re-issuing 2E also, interesting.

It will be interesting to see what all happens. I'm slightly more optimistic I might like an eventual BG3 now!

FinneousPJ

Probably could but wouldn't.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

mashedtaters

There's been some discussion about making a (edit:) video game that uses 4e. I've never played it, but there is already one out. It's called Daggerdale. If anyone here has any feedback on that game, maybe it could give us a better idea of how a video game plays on 4e rules.

mashedtaters

I would like to see that PNP new release of dnd 2e. I think that would be very interesting. It would definitely make me nostalgic and possibly a bit weepy.

(That was a joke. The weepy part. In case anyone needed to know.)

mashedtaters

I just read a few reviews on daggedale. Here's a review from rpggamer:

http://www.rpgamer.com/games/dnd/daggerdale/reviews/daggerdalestrev1.html

One complaint, in addition to the constant bugs among others, is the lack of roleplaying.

I think that BG3 would better be left unreleased than be without roleplaying. It would be like peanut butter without peanuts. Or butter.

That does give me hope, though, that maybe, just maybe, BG3 could be 2e if WotSC is trying to re-release old AD&D books. Check it out here:

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/45390000

Kilivitz

That original D&D box looks SEXY.

And well, I've seen a couple of gameplay videos of Daggerdale and it looks horrible.

teancum42

I'm not convinced that the issues with Daggerdale are related to the ruleset they chose to use, rather they are just related to it being a poorly made game. (I haven't played it, but that is the impression I got from the reviews I read).

WoTC is in the process of re-releasing all of their old stuff, mostly as pdfs, I believe. It is pretty cool for people that still play using those old systems, they can replace beat up books or fill in gaps in their library without scouring ebay, but I don't think it will affect their choice of edition for any licensed products. It seems a near certainty to me that they will want whatever publicity a video game might bring them to be directed at the most current version of the rules, the one they are actively supporting and selling.

The reason for that is not only that they would hope to sell those products as a result of the game, but that they would probably want people to get involved. The more involved people get in things like organized play, the more product WoTC is likely to sell to them, and the better off they (and the hobby) are.

Of course, I can't speak for WoTC, nor can I tell the future. They might decide that using the 2e ruleset has some other advantages that are worth the losses. I just don't see it happening, personally.

By the way, WoTC is doing an open playtest of the new ruleset and soliciting feedback on the different components of it. If you want to experience it for free and have a chance to influence the final product, check it out: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx

mashedtaters

Man, this whole discussion has been a rollercoaster ride for my stomach sicknesses. "Yes, they could," "No, they couldn't," "Maybe they couldn't even if they would," "Maybe they would even if they couldn't."

I wonder if Overhaul made bg3 using the same engine as iwd or bg2...I kind of always naively imagined that bg3 would look and feel and play basically the same as bg1&2, with spiced up sprites and higher definition graphics, and new characters and a brand new story. Kind of like a giant add-on mod. Foolish of me? Perhaps. Stuck in the past? Perhaps. Wrong? Remains to be seen.

Mathmick

Do we actually NEED D&D rules? As long as the game plays fine and the same "style" is preserved who really cares what the rules are based on.

I've said before that I'd rather them create their own rule-set to suit rather than copy-paste something else and hope it works. At least that way you don't introduce any redundant mechanics that do absolutely nothing functionally. *cough*infravision*unconvincing cough*

mashedtaters

Thanks for the link, btw, teancum42. I read about a guy named teancum.

mashedtaters

Mathmick said:

Do we actually NEED D&D rules? As long as the game plays fine and the same "style" is preserved who really cares what the rules are based on.

I've said before that I'd rather them create their own rule-set to suit rather than copy-paste something else and hope it works. At least that way you don't introduce any redundant mechanics that do absolutely nothing functionally. *cough*infravision*unconvincing cough*

Lol. Yes infravision is pretty stupid.

No, it probably isn't NEEDED. Desperately craved by most players? Probably.

Lemernis

Re: infravision I've never quite understood why they couldn't apply a -1 penalty to hit for ranged weapons at night for those that don't have it. Or maybe make it -2 to hit with ranged and -1 to hit with melee to make it meaningful. I don't know how it is implemented in PnP, but for the BG games that would make it sense. To me anyway.

mashedtaters

It's pretty useful in the old PnP games, but its definitely a role-playing tool more than an advantage. I don't know if you've ever read R.A. Salvatore's books, but he does a great job describing it.

But I digress. Your suggestion, Lemernis, would definitely be more meaningful than turning people red. When I first started playing, I couldn't figure out why everyone kept randomly turning red. I made no connection at first between my elf and the redness. Then I picked up a helmet of infravision and it dawned on me.

teancum42

Assuming you are talking about the same book as I am, @mashedtaters, it is a pretty good book. Teancum is one of the more obscure characters from it, but he definitely has a moment of total awesomeness.

Project Eternity (http://eternity.obsidian.net/) is going to be an isometric RPG that uses a ruleset they are building for it (rather than an existing PnP ruleset). Looks pretty cool, I'm excited for it. However, I'm not sure that would work so well for BG3. The Forgotten Realms is pretty closely tied to the D&D brand, so if you want to use the setting you will almost certainly have to use the ruleset. If you don't use the setting, well then your game might be awesome, but it won't be BG3.

the_spyder

It is interesting to wonder... "If" WoTC/Hasbro doesn't green-light BG3 (yes, I know that is blasphemy), could someone decide to "Kickstarter" a spiritual successor using the Pathfinder rules?

And if so, would people be interested in it?

atcDave

Mathmick said:

Do we actually NEED D&D rules? As long as the game plays fine and the same "style" is preserved who really cares what the rules are based on.

I've said before that I'd rather them create their own rule-set to suit rather than copy-paste something else and hope it works. At least that way you don't introduce any redundant mechanics that do absolutely nothing functionally. *cough*infravision*unconvincing cough*

Yes, we NEED AD&D rules. There are a staggering number of fantasy games and settings on the market; for me it's the D&D rules that make the BG games unique and interesting. Without them, it's just another fantasy game.

atcDave

the_spyder said:

It is interesting to wonder... "If" WoTC/Hasbro doesn't green-light BG3 (yes, I know that is blasphemy), could someone decide to "Kickstarter" a spiritual successor using the Pathfinder rules?

And if so, would people be interested in it?

I'm an AD&D guy, so Pathfinder holds little appeal to me. Although I could go for Hackmaster!

the_spyder

I too am a AD&D guy. Just saying that given the state of things and the potential that Hasbro might not want to do the game at all, or if they do, would probably push the latest version 4E or Next, I have to wonder if Pathfinder would be at least an option to someone.

I never played Hackmaster, but I did play the Elric - White Wolf rules set. Don't know if they are anything close, but it was fun back in the day.

I also played for a short time a D&D like campaign that my DM ran using a modified version of the Champions rules set. That was fun if a tiny bit difficult to keep in scope. I think that the Champions rules, if handled correctly would make another really decent CRPG. And I personally would LOVE to play a game based on Paranoia. That would be awesome in my book.