Hackmaster is a modification of 1E, so it really would be like playing AD&D. I used to play a V&V game modified to be more 2E-like, but I'm not as familiar with Champions.
Well, while I think BG would not be BG without 2e... Though I don't really know where the story could go after Throne of Bhaal so personally I somewhat doubt them continueing the bhaalspawn story if they make a BG3... If they do make start a new story line it may not entirely need to be 2e as it doesn't need to be similar the way BG1 and 2 were.
The DnD license has really gone to waste there has not been a DnD CRPG since NwN2. there has been a straight game and a action game that did not really make it big time.
I'd much prefer 4E got a proper video game. Neverwinter looks like fun as an MMO that just happens to use the Forgotten Realms license, but it's clearly not meant to be a "4E Baldur's Gate."
Well, while I think BG would not be BG without 2e... Though I don't really know where the story could go after Throne of Bhaal so personally I somewhat doubt them continueing the bhaalspawn story if they make a BG3... If they do make start a new story line it may not entirely need to be 2e as it doesn't need to be similar the way BG1 and 2 were.
I don't think it could be a bhaalspawn story. I always thought it would pick up with charname's kid, and just assume that he married Arie. Of course, that would not entirely explain having a dwarf protagonist, but bg1&2 couldn't explain how a twenty year old dwarf wasn't walking around in diapers.
If the games industry is so driven by numbers and statistics, I'd be curious to know how many fans of CRPG's were inspired to go into tabletop gaming after playing a whatever game. I was inspired to buy some FR books after playing BG1 when it came out, then I was inspired to stop once 4th edition pushed the apocalyptic button on it all.
Just wonder why a developer has to use the ruleset - what if they created their own within the setting? Similiar to how the rules were bent in PST.
If the games industry is so driven by numbers and statistics, I'd be curious to know how many fans of CRPG's were inspired to go into tabletop gaming after playing a whatever game. I was inspired to buy some FR books after playing BG1 when it came out, then I was inspired to stop once 4th edition pushed the apocalyptic button on it all.
Just wonder why a developer has to use the ruleset - what if they created their own within the setting? Similiar to how the rules were bent in PST.
I think a lot of us, who started in PNP, like being able to translate favorite old characters into the game. So sticking close to core rules helps. Of course every DM I ever played with modified rules quite a lot, and BG takes plenty of liberties too. But the farther they stray from anything "official" the more fans of the official rules they will loose. Obviously, whichever rules set they choose will cost them some players too. But if they want to attract the D&D crowd, they need a game that can at least claim to be D&D.
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.
In my opinion the thing that stands out about Baldur's Gate is not "It uses D&D" but rather "It's a good game".
I think a what should make a game stand out from the rest is that is more deep, rich, enjoyable etc., rather than it having something that something else has. "Having D&D" is less a part of the core experience of BG than the large, open world filled with a variety of characters to interact with, interesting and varied quests, and having a strong overarching storyline based on a character you made to represent yourself in the game.
I'm not opposed to having D&D in the series. My point is just that it's not the main part of what made the series great, whereas I read some of what is said as if it's the only aspect of the game that makes it what it is.
Mathmick you are right about the importance of the game itself. But AD&D is what drew me to the game. I have enough hobbies and interests that I'm not actively looking for new games, they need to do something to get my attention. And AD&D rules is one guaranteed way to do it. Suffice to say, if BG had not been AD&D, I never would have played it, no matter how good the reviews. If a new game is not AD&D, I won't play it either. I'm an AD&D player FIRST, a computer gamer second.
Mathmick you are right about the importance of the game itself. But AD&D is what drew me to the game. I have enough hobbies and interests that I'm not actively looking for new games, they need to do something to get my attention. And AD&D rules is one guaranteed way to do it. Suffice to say, if BG had not been AD&D, I never would have played it, no matter how good the reviews. If a new game is not AD&D, I won't play it either. I'm an AD&D player FIRST, a computer gamer second.
I agree with you about being a AD&D player first. I actually have a hard time playing fantasy video games that are spin-offs of D&D, with renamed aspects, e.g., hunter=ranger, white mage=cleric, power=strength, agility=dexterity, endurance=constitution, personality=charisma.
@atcDave I'm going pretty off-topic here, but as a guy whose AD&D exposure went 2.5e (via BG/IWD, etc) followed ~15 years later by PnP Hackmaster, I say bring on the Hack!
@atcDave I'm going pretty off-topic here, but as a guy whose AD&D exposure went 2.5e (via BG/IWD, etc) followed ~15 years later by PnP Hackmaster, I say bring on the Hack!
WOTC already has a 4e game out on the way, Neverwinter. Unfortunately they stripped down almost all the variety in the game for the sake of "balance" (for a game that won't be played competatively... sigh).
I could see WOTC deciding that their Neverwinter series should keep players familiar with the new rulesets, while BG3 should be for those among us that prefer 2e.
Comments
AD&D had its time, and that time has passed.
http://www.tentonhammer.com/neverwinter/opinions/4e-rules
http://kotaku.com/5916124/neverwinter-takes-a-fast+paced-streamlined-stab-and-swing-and-zap-at-dd
http://gamingsf.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/the-new-neverwinter-nights/
http://pixelsordeath.com/the-long/neverwinter-previewing-an-mmo-id-actually-play
Unless the protagonist is a distant cousin!!!!!
Ok, I'll shut up now.
I'm just sayin'....
Shutting up for reals this time.
Just wonder why a developer has to use the ruleset - what if they created their own within the setting? Similiar to how the rules were bent in PST.
I think a what should make a game stand out from the rest is that is more deep, rich, enjoyable etc., rather than it having something that something else has. "Having D&D" is less a part of the core experience of BG than the large, open world filled with a variety of characters to interact with, interesting and varied quests, and having a strong overarching storyline based on a character you made to represent yourself in the game.
I'm not opposed to having D&D in the series. My point is just that it's not the main part of what made the series great, whereas I read some of what is said as if it's the only aspect of the game that makes it what it is.
Suffice to say, if BG had not been AD&D, I never would have played it, no matter how good the reviews. If a new game is not AD&D, I won't play it either.
I'm an AD&D player FIRST, a computer gamer second.
I could see WOTC deciding that their Neverwinter series should keep players familiar with the new rulesets, while BG3 should be for those among us that prefer 2e.