BGEE uses 2.5 and some rules from 3.0 doesn't it? Not sure...
I believe vanilla BG used plain 2.5. I loaded it up the other day because I like the aesthetics - old and charming - but it's hard to go back.
Vanilla BG was certainly the most like 2E. Some things, like weapon proficiencies, are all optional in PNP, so anything they do will be an interpretation of some sort or another.
BGII got odd in places. Kits were all optional in 2E, and MOST of them were far more subtle than in BGII. The original idea was that kits were more of a role playing aid, and not so much benefit to power gamers. I don't dislike what was done with kits, but I do dislike the power gaming questions! (geez guys, choose an Undead Hunter or Jester because its fun to play, don't worry so much about how many battles your kit abilities may or may not dominate...) I'm less enthused about the new classes. Barbarian should be a fighter kit, not a new class. Now to be clear, part of what I love about 2E is its wide open as template for all sorts of redesign and tinkering like this. I've been using and tweaking these rules myself for 25 years, I have some of my own kits, classes, spells, proficiencies, well, you get the point. But BGII looks funny to me the way certain elements from 3E (which was just coming out at about the same time the game was released) were sort of shoe horned in to it. I can just imagine the marketing guys fussing "3E is a big deal! We need to make this more like 3E!" Oy. Well whatever. I don't have to use the new classes so I mostly don't.
The HLAs are another odd duck. There was a "High Level Campaigns" book for 2E (part of what's considered the 2.5E rules) but it didn't have anything much like the HLAs. All things considered I don't like them much. I think they're too much. Gilding a lily as the saying goes. And I find so much gold a little tacky...
But that's mostly all just nit picking. On balance I'm pretty thoroughly pleased with the BGII game engine. By far my favorite option for a new game would be to just re-use the existing game engine with a new story and adventure.
D&D Lore while using the Pathfinder ruleset would be most appropiate. 3.5e is an easy to learn ruleset, in some aspects close to 2e, but 3.5e won't be licensed by Hasbro and WotC anymore. Thus Pathfinder. This only of course if it is a real continuation of the Bhaalspawn saga.
Otherwise a spiritual successor should use Pathfinder entirely, perhaps something based on draconic or demonic (or perhaps angelic) heritage instead of divine? (NOTE: A demonic and angelic heritage basis is not possible as that would be a direct clone of the Diablo series)
Or some ruleset based around a Karma distribution system (directly increasing stats/learning new skills/improving existing skills with experience earned through questing, like in Shadowrun) which essentially would make characters classless.
BGEE uses 2.5 and some rules from 3.0 doesn't it? Not sure...
I believe vanilla BG used plain 2.5. I loaded it up the other day because I like the aesthetics - old and charming - but it's hard to go back.
Vanilla BG was certainly the most like 2E. Some things, like weapon proficiencies, are all optional in PNP, so anything they do will be an interpretation of some sort or another.
Yea like magic resistance. In the original bg1 magic resistance could stop your own spells from working on one of your characters protected by it. As I understand it that is how it works in 2nd edition.
DnD 4th Edition isn't getting any love whatsoever. More people voted there not be ANY dnd rather than use the 4th edition.
I'm guessing most people just didn't care about 4e because 3e was still young and didn't really have any faults that other editions didn't have. Sure there were more options for Min-Maxing, but you could Min-Max in 2e. The DM can easily make a min-maxer's character's hell. Or just kick them out of the group if they insist on powergaming in a D&D group that explicitly prohibits powergaming.
Personally, I got turned off by how 4e tried to balance everything. Balance in D&D is implemented by how the campaign is handled by the DM, not the system. Although that would make it an excellent system to use in a MMORPG where issues like class balance are more important. It'd be horrible if you invested dozens of hours into a Fighter only to find out that high level content gets blown away by Mages and no one wants you in their party except fellow Fighters.
Yea like magic resistance. In the original bg1 magic resistance could stop your own spells from working on one of your characters protected by it. As I understand it that is how it works in 2nd edition.
Eww I remember those days. That made Viconia unplayable in my group. Even healing potions could get resisted. I definitely didn't agree with that.
I'd like to point to this post by @Tanthalas from the August of 2012: the situation is so that there's no other way to make a game based on DnD without using the current rules.
I'd like to point to this post by @Tanthalas from the August of 2012: the situation is so that there's no other way to make a game based on DnD without using the current rules.
I think it would be a fascinating project to see how close to the Infinity ruleset (2nd edition AD&D with some kits from ed. 3.0) D&D Next could be. D&D Next is supposed to be modular and customizable. Mike Mearls, Senior Manager, D&D Research and Development states re: D&D Next: "We are entering into this design with a real sense of modularity, letting people pick and choose what elements of D&D to use."
On the WotC D&D Next forum I posted a query about how customizable D&D Next would be toward the end of trying to recreate the magic of the BG series in a BG3, and for reference sake here it is:
I'd like to point to this post by @Tanthalas from the August of 2012: the situation is so that there's no other way to make a game based on DnD without using the current rules.
But... I so much like how it's implemented in BG1 and BG2. Seriosly, I wouldn't like anything to change if compared with existing BG games.
"no other way" is pretty much always utter nonsense. I have no doubt WotC would prefer to license a product using the most current rules set. But there are so many variables; from the pure business issues, to legal and software development. It is simply not that hard for me to imagine developing a "classic" or "legacy" sort of product. And WotC IS still supporting older rules sets. Especially since the easiest path to new a game would surely involve reusing the game engine of the older one. I would be surprised by nothing. And to me the math of it all is simple. If they do a 2E product I'm on board. If they don't, I'm out.
@atcDave yeah, I think that although it is highly likely that D&D Next would be pushed, @Tanthalas made an overstatement there.
Here is something important for WotC to bear in mind, I feel: CRPGs are not the same as tabletop! Not all rulesets translate well to a CRPG, as many fans know from other attempts at it in the past decade and a half. Similarly, MMORPGs are not the same as CRPGs. (One criticism of 4th ed. being that it was designed to try to capture a MMORPG market of younger players.) However CRPG and console gaming is very similar.
At the end of the day what WotC wants is a truly kickass game that CRPG customers and console gaming system customers want, not tabletop players, or MMORPG players. And I think WotC can have very high confidence of having an amazingly excellent product if they recreated Infinity's ruleset with today's technology. In a sense, this would actually be realization of the dream that the EE project had before the discovery that the original 3D artwork was lost.
If they were to take this gamble, it would truly deserved to be called BG3. The story will probably use the legacy of the BG saga as a launching pad for a brand new tale with some tie-ins to the tale of Gorion's Ward. But in terms of the ruleset it would certainly deserve to be called BG3 (or BG Next--i.e., to have "Baldur's Gate" in the title) in that very important respect.
I realize that WotC wants to attract younger video console players who are into MMORPGs. But quite honestly, the attempts to translate D&D into real time combat have been pretty lackluster imho with the one shining exception of the BG series. If BG3 is going to be a CRPG/Console product, then why not see if they can entice younger players to enjoy an earlier classic ruleset?
The gamble is about even it seems to me. They can risk making a crappy and unsatisfying game using D&D Next (not that it necessarily would be, but if past predicts future there is certainly a substantial risk of that). Or they can make what they know will be an excellent gaming experience that may not connect with a target demographic that they are keen to please (although here too, it may succeed brilliantly at that when they make it available for console gaming systems).
So they really could have a smart business plan to go retro with the ruleset, and make it available to today's generation of console players.
Comments
BGII got odd in places. Kits were all optional in 2E, and MOST of them were far more subtle than in BGII. The original idea was that kits were more of a role playing aid, and not so much benefit to power gamers. I don't dislike what was done with kits, but I do dislike the power gaming questions! (geez guys, choose an Undead Hunter or Jester because its fun to play, don't worry so much about how many battles your kit abilities may or may not dominate...)
I'm less enthused about the new classes. Barbarian should be a fighter kit, not a new class.
Now to be clear, part of what I love about 2E is its wide open as template for all sorts of redesign and tinkering like this. I've been using and tweaking these rules myself for 25 years, I have some of my own kits, classes, spells, proficiencies, well, you get the point.
But BGII looks funny to me the way certain elements from 3E (which was just coming out at about the same time the game was released) were sort of shoe horned in to it. I can just imagine the marketing guys fussing "3E is a big deal! We need to make this more like 3E!" Oy.
Well whatever. I don't have to use the new classes so I mostly don't.
The HLAs are another odd duck. There was a "High Level Campaigns" book for 2E (part of what's considered the 2.5E rules) but it didn't have anything much like the HLAs. All things considered I don't like them much. I think they're too much. Gilding a lily as the saying goes. And I find so much gold a little tacky...
But that's mostly all just nit picking. On balance I'm pretty thoroughly pleased with the BGII game engine. By far my favorite option for a new game would be to just re-use the existing game engine with a new story and adventure.
Otherwise a spiritual successor should use Pathfinder entirely, perhaps something based on draconic or demonic (or perhaps angelic) heritage instead of divine? (NOTE: A demonic and angelic heritage basis is not possible as that would be a direct clone of the Diablo series)
Or some ruleset based around a Karma distribution system (directly increasing stats/learning new skills/improving existing skills with experience earned through questing, like in Shadowrun) which essentially would make characters classless.
Personally, I got turned off by how 4e tried to balance everything. Balance in D&D is implemented by how the campaign is handled by the DM, not the system. Although that would make it an excellent system to use in a MMORPG where issues like class balance are more important. It'd be horrible if you invested dozens of hours into a Fighter only to find out that high level content gets blown away by Mages and no one wants you in their party except fellow Fighters.
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/41212/#Comment_41212
But... I so much like how it's implemented in BG1 and BG2. Seriosly, I wouldn't like anything to change if compared with existing BG games.
Could someone tell me how it works in later editions? If it's a generic mana system I'll be sad.
Philip Daigle said the same thing here but emphasizes probability versus certainty, and the business reason for it:
http://forum.baldursgate.com/discussion/comment/41198
I think it would be a fascinating project to see how close to the Infinity ruleset (2nd edition AD&D with some kits from ed. 3.0) D&D Next could be. D&D Next is supposed to be modular and customizable. Mike Mearls, Senior Manager, D&D Research and Development states re: D&D Next: "We are entering into this design with a real sense of modularity, letting people pick and choose what elements of D&D to use."
On the WotC D&D Next forum I posted a query about how customizable D&D Next would be toward the end of trying to recreate the magic of the BG series in a BG3, and for reference sake here it is:
http://community.wizards.com/forum/dd-next-general-discussion/threads/4084671
I'm curious to see what D&D Next players there have to say about this premise.
I would be surprised by nothing. And to me the math of it all is simple. If they do a 2E product I'm on board. If they don't, I'm out.
Here is something important for WotC to bear in mind, I feel: CRPGs are not the same as tabletop! Not all rulesets translate well to a CRPG, as many fans know from other attempts at it in the past decade and a half. Similarly, MMORPGs are not the same as CRPGs. (One criticism of 4th ed. being that it was designed to try to capture a MMORPG market of younger players.) However CRPG and console gaming is very similar.
At the end of the day what WotC wants is a truly kickass game that CRPG customers and console gaming system customers want, not tabletop players, or MMORPG players. And I think WotC can have very high confidence of having an amazingly excellent product if they recreated Infinity's ruleset with today's technology. In a sense, this would actually be realization of the dream that the EE project had before the discovery that the original 3D artwork was lost.
If they were to take this gamble, it would truly deserved to be called BG3. The story will probably use the legacy of the BG saga as a launching pad for a brand new tale with some tie-ins to the tale of Gorion's Ward. But in terms of the ruleset it would certainly deserve to be called BG3 (or BG Next--i.e., to have "Baldur's Gate" in the title) in that very important respect.
I realize that WotC wants to attract younger video console players who are into MMORPGs. But quite honestly, the attempts to translate D&D into real time combat have been pretty lackluster imho with the one shining exception of the BG series. If BG3 is going to be a CRPG/Console product, then why not see if they can entice younger players to enjoy an earlier classic ruleset?
The gamble is about even it seems to me. They can risk making a crappy and unsatisfying game using D&D Next (not that it necessarily would be, but if past predicts future there is certainly a substantial risk of that). Or they can make what they know will be an excellent gaming experience that may not connect with a target demographic that they are keen to please (although here too, it may succeed brilliantly at that when they make it available for console gaming systems).
So they really could have a smart business plan to go retro with the ruleset, and make it available to today's generation of console players.