I think they should just do pstee in 2e and rebalance it with kits like thier doing for iwd.
Adding kits to PST wouldn't work. The Nameless One always starts out as a fighter, and depending on quests and dialogue, he can switch to Mage or Thief. He can then switch freely back and forth between classes (but only be one class at a time).
Because of how the game is written, you can't easily add in party NPCs either, and the existing NPCs are almost all unique in their abilities to the point of being kitted already. For example... floating skull that taunts enemies and bites them to death.
There's a reason it's so frequently at the top of Best RPGs lists - between the game itself and the restored content mod, there's no call for even one word of new content. (And that's setting aside the fact that with the very best will in the world, Beamdog's current crop of writers are nowhere near the caliber of Chris Avellone and Colin McComb.)
(ditch d&d altogether, make a completely separate game etc.)
That's not what I'm saying: Goldbox are as D&D as you can get and predate the IE. They're stricter than BG, with loathesome level limits and human favoritism because of it.
So no, don't ditch D&D, the IE works... why throw it away with the baby and the bathwater... or however the saying goes.
@Dazzu your quote is incomplete - the offered answer is actually: *none of the above* (ditch d&d altogether, make a completely separate game etc.) as you can see, that goes for all other ideas not just for those two random examples i came up with.
i'd believe that you honestly misunderstood the answer if you only hadn't selectively quoted.
I plan to buy adventure Y but I don't plan to buy IWD EE. I enjoyed IWD, I replayed it 5 times and then I was done; fully cooked, time for the fork.
1. PST. The Torment ruleset is really the torment ruleset -- it is kinda sort of 1.5 or 2.1 with the dual classing rules stretched to the breaking point. Trying to make it fit another ruleset? Procrustes. Procrustes, I say. I'd like to play that game again and would be happy to pay a modest amount for a game that would play on a modern computer. So yes to PST, no to PST 3rd ed.
2. I thought IWD II was fair at best -- only played it once, didn't think it was as good as IWD I. Not so bad that I asked for refund but I decided that was my last Black Isle game. No interest at all.
3. I'd like to see someone else make BG3 -- perhaps Ossian (sp?) studios.
Neera was a great addition to the BG series but the other NPCs aren't as good as the original cast. At this point I see the other NPCs as an annoyance I wish I could remove from the game: no 'Hexxat' I don't want to recruit you, stop asking every time I walk into the inn . . . Dorn, I've killed you 3 times, why do you keep respawning? And, you, Monk why do I need to go through so much dialogue options to get you to go away? Get! All of you! I wish I could use that splash screen to uninstall y'all.
I really hope that some other developer can look at what Beamdog has done right and what they have done badly and find a way to build on what worked. Reviving a classic -- good idea. BD's decision to take on more projects than it could handle -- bad idea. Quick loot? Good idea. Hexxat? bad. Dorn? bad . . .
If you want to see a 3rd edition game encourage BD to take on the Temple of Elemental Evil -- best 3rd edition engine to date. Loads of bugs and the devs never really fleshed out the NPCs but I had lots of fun whacking low level monsters. It also seems like the sort of game Beamdog want to make.
. . . But . . . if this is the only way BG3 gets made? Maybe. Perhaps. Not sure.
I'd love to see Beamdog make something new. Whether or not it is set in a D&D world doesn't matter as much to me. I enjoyed the new characters and content in the EEs, particularly the humor, so I think they have a good shot at making something memorable and fun.
The only reason I can imagine a Baldur's Gate 3 being made is for the name tie-in. The power of a franchise name can't be ignored in the marketing world. In terms of story it's hard to imagine how it could all tie together given the seeming finality at the end of Throne of Bhaal, the over one hundred year time jump, and at least two world shattering events which have happened since.
Icewind Dale 3 probably would, as some have noted, be a better choice since the games are based more on the setting than on a connecting story. It's a new group of adventurers so time jumps and upheavals mean less. The IWD series wasn't exactly a blockbuster though, and I'm not sure the name would have as much potential sales impact as the Baldur's Gate name, so there would be less reason for a game to use the name.
The Forgotten Realms is a large place and yet the games have touched only on a small percentage of the potential. Beamdog could step away from the familiar areas and make their own mark on regions as-of-yet unexplored.
Still, If they do decide to release EEs of Torment or IWD2 I'll be happy to try those. I'm not so much against the idea of more EEs as I am eager to see the company show us their best creation skills.
for IWD3, it's i think impossible to go back to 2.5E since IWD2 is already in 3E so a "new engine" (actually the same engine modified with 3e rules) would have to be put in place.
for BG3 i think that it'd be much better to go with a more modern ruleset but that's just my opinion.
Just call it "Legends of Icewind Dale" rather than IWD3. No problem using the Inf+ engine for that.
And who cares if the rules are "more modern"? If the game is fun, that's all that matters.
1) Make PST using 2nd edition rules. 3rd edition rules break the plot. It kinda relies on characters not being able to chop and change classes. It's not a tactics game, the combat is quite good enough to tell the story. One or two new NPCs should be added, and be as detailed as the existing ones. The BG2EE engine could be used to add a Bard. A cleric/thief could also be implemented in the engine and expand the party options. A gay romance option could be added.
I don't find any new Enhanced Editions particularly exciting or worthwhile, unless there is a whole bunch of previously cut content that justifies making IWD2:EE. Not that I will be buying it, but some people may be intrigued by it.
While BG3 / IWD3 or whatever brand new game title sounds intriguing in theory, I'd rather Beamdog didn't develop them unless they improve their story writing, which I found somewhat lacking and inconsistent.
For the being, I think DLC-sized content (think Adventure Y) for a modest price is fine. Grander projects like those mentioned above can wait.
I think Beamdog should make PS:T:EE, but just fix it's bugs and compile it natively for nowadays OS X. Same with IWD2:EE. No changes to the rule of any of the games.
If they later take on any other project, well, can't comment on that since I don't know what they have on mind.
This is a ddifficult question, hard to answer it without not knowing details of Beamdog's contracts and their business meetings.
If I come only from my own preference I would vote for releasing IWD2:EE with the same rules as in the vanilla game. It would finish the circle, make a good ending to EE-ing IWD.
After that I would vote for making IWD3. From what I've seen so far, a game like that can be really what Beamdog are capable of. And a separate, new game would be exactly what is needed in order to understand if they can make BBGNext or not. Right now I don't see how they can make such a complicated game, full of NPC interaction and detailed quests. Not only it's a hard question if BG3 can ever be made, there're questions about what should be in that game, what plot line should it have, what company should do it, what graphics should be used.
And to get a look at Beamdog's abilities in terms of creating a new game (not EE-ing, but making something new from scratch) we should taste IWDNext, I think. Both Black Pits show they can make a rather solid combat line with interesting fights. I'm almost certain IWDEE will be a success and get better reviews and fan reception than BGEE. I'm sure many IE fans would try a new game that looks like and feels like like IWD. These thing combined point me to the fact IWD3 can be the best choice.
And as far as I know, a new game should definitely use the latest D&D setting - it's a "hardware" demand of WoTC.
And about PSTEE - I'm afraid in the wake of the new Torment game it wouldn't be the best idea to release an old game in a renowned engine. The new game would simply look better. Some people think PST cannot be even enhanced because it's already ideal.
I think Beamdog should make PS:T:EE, but just fix it's bugs and compile it natively for nowadays OS X. Same with IWD2:EE. No changes to the rule of any of the games.
Assuming the source code still exists. It's not inconceivable that source for PST or IWD2 has been lost (but it would be sad). As Trent mention in the RPGGamer interview, they had no source code for Heart of Winter, and they had to recreate the HoW engine features for Inf+.
Planescape: Torment is fine as it is. The same is for Baldur's Gate 1. BG3 would have to use newest D&D rules, and those are quite bad (even 3rd edition doesn't work very well). Not that I dislike Beamdog, but I don't see the need to either make BG3 or PSTEE. As for the IWD, I rarely play them, so I don't have an opinion.
And about PSTEE - I'm afraid in the wake of the new Torment game it wouldn't be the best idea to release an old game in a renowned engine. The new game would simply look better. Some people think PST cannot be even enhanced because it's already ideal.
To be fair, I don't think anyone would expect "enhanced" editions of decade-old games to compete with "Pillars of Eternity" or "Tides of Numenara". There is some value to the notion of bug-fixing PS:T (it wasn't nearly as messy as the BG games, but certainly had its share of flaws), restoring the very small amount of cut content, and rereleasing the game for modern systems.
The larger issue, IMO, is that it would be very difficult to make the case that Beamdog should be trusted with that job. Trent Oster has admitted on more than one occasion that they botched the BG EEs; BG2:EE is now going on eleven months with zero support (other than the devs clucking their tongues and agreeing that the situation sucks).
What might help them is IWD:EE, assuming they can release and maintain it at a reasonable rate. Because that's basically the same job they'd be expected to do with PST:EE - 90% technical work (no NPCs, no original plot content), 10% restoring cut content.
to be honest, i don't really see why they'd do a a pstee.. i played it recently (installed it on my mac with my old cd-roms) with a couple mods (widescreen etc) and it was still brilliant
First off, I've never played PS:T, and I am unlikely to ever buy it on GOG, slightly more likely to buy PST:EE. Whether it's written in 2, 3, or 5 is utterly irrelevant to me, I voted 3.5 because someone said 2.5 is mutually exclusive to the story .. or something .. spoilers ..
As for BG3, well BG3 doesn't exist. They could code up anything, and just as easily slap IWD3 on it as BG3. This is purely marketing, and if the name gets them more sales, great.
Finally, a comment on some of the hate Beamdog's drawing. Wow. As a developer myself, I know the pain of being pressured to release before you're ready .. and then getting crapped on for releasing a buggy product. I think they did a pretty good job, and currently probably employ most of the developers still interested in BG? So really, I'm betting they are less likely to stuff up BG3 than any software house you'd care to name. Atari presumably hold the IP, do you really want them to have a go?
As for 5e, well I've seen 2.x in the BGs, I've seen what presumably was 3.x in NWN2, and I really can't remember what NWN1 used. Clearly no-one shall speak of 4e, but I'd be interested to see what 5e was like. If it's really nasty .. well I suppose it comes down to whether WotC allow new development using old edition rules? This may actually explain the rise of RPGs that eschew D&D entirely.
It isn't really spoilerish. PST pretty much uses it's own ruleset. The protagonist can switch between 3 classes, but can only have one active class at a time. Each class earns experince separately. it would't make sense for the protagonist to take on new classes, especially cleric. Classes are modified to suit specific companions. There is no armour or shields, and many weapons are tied to specific companions, rather than class, in the maner of JRPGs.
It is also a dialogue heavy game, with a lot of conversation options tied to the protagonist's stats. Switching to a skill based system would be a huge amount of work and significantly change the game's dynamic.
it's not that deviating from normal 2E, it's just truncated. it works like dual-classing except that you can't regain the earlier class, but switch back instead. HP tables also follow dualclassing rules.
what beamdog conceivably could add is the ability to become a cleric (the class exists in the engine and there's a cleric NPC but you can't become one which is kinda sad) another good choice for adding a class would be monk. paladin, ranger, druid, bard and sorcerer in my opinion would not fit in. barbarian could be made a kit (for low int dumb-mode characters:)
...kits actually could be added instead of the "specialization bonus" that you pick at levels 7 and 12 so that you get to pick a kit when you reach lvl7 and a kit related bonus or ability at level12.
so for example the nameless one might become a berserker upon deciding so. it might not fit in the game aesthetically for some people it would still be better than the way tackier (at least for me) stat boost. - berserker, kensai and wizard slayer (ungimped) seem like reasonable kits for the game's setting and tone to me - assassin and bounty hunter feel perfectly appropriate (but swashbuckler definitely not) - picking a magic school specialization makes sense. same goes for wild magic. - when it comes to clerics, being devoted to a particular faith does not make roleplaying sense and as it would interfere with the protagonist's metaphysical disorientation (to put it that way) but choosing a sphere could be implemented
to add some more roleplaying coherence to kits and certain classes, their choice might tied up to what faction you belong to...
therefore in my opinion there's room for adding things to PS:T. i don't think that it's a much more "perfect" game than BG1 which experienced the same level of alteration. BG2 didn't experience alteration but it got substantial new content.
Does Icewind Dale still exist in the post-Spellplague world? If I understand the licensing situation correctly, Beamdog will be forced to use the most recent edition of D&D if they make a new game.
I think I understand why WotC wants all new games to match their latest D&D editions - they need to sell copies of source books and modules to survive as a company. Apparently, they still make most of their profit by creating new editions and trying to get people to buy and collect all the new source materials. Thus, they only want to license new games that help them with their sales goals and business model.
It wouldn't make sense for the protagonist in PST to pick a kit.
You aren't learning new skills, you are remembering old ones.
You could certainly add things from the BG2EE if you put in one or two new characters. I already suggested a bard. You wouldn't use existing kits though. The design of PST is such that each character should have their own unique kit. For example, the only cleric can't use any weapons at all.
Does Icewind Dale still exist in the post-Spellplague world? If I understand the licensing situation correctly, Beamdog will be forced to use the most recent edition of D&D if they make a new game.
Yep, Icewind Dale is still around. At this point it is the post-Sundering world which was a big, relatively unexplained, event which essentially "fixed" almost everything caused by the Spellplague. It's still many years into the future, but nearly all the dead gods have returned and many of the changes to the geography have been changed back to the pre-Spellplague. Icewind Dale lives on.
I think I understand why WotC wants all new games to match their latest D&D editions - they need to sell copies of source books and modules to survive as a company. Apparently, they still make most of their profit by creating new editions and trying to get people to buy and collect all the new source materials. Thus, they only want to license new games that help them with their sales goals and business model.
I have to agree with that and I'm I personally won't care what rules they use as long as the game is fun. I can understand the reluctance to try new things though. Once you've learned all the obscure rules it's a pain to have to relearn them for a new game.
Having spent a couple of years getting the EE infinity engine working, it makes sense to use it to get out an EE version of every game that can be shoehorned to use it. The more it's used, the better the stability of ALL the games that use it.
I imagine that wotc will only allow IWD2:EE to be released using 3.x, or the latest version. This would call for heavy modifications to the EE engine, or an entirely new engine. Once a EE3 engine exists, it would make sense to put out an EE version of any 3.x game that they can access the license for. I assume NWN1 is not on the table? If the 3.x list is too short, it probably won't pay to build a new engine, and even modifying the existing engine might become too expensive.
Back to PST:EE. It really sounds to me like PST didn't / shouldn't use D&D at all. Does the original box actually say D&D anywhere? The new kickstarter Torment doesn't seem to. Also who actually holds the Planescape license?
That said, if Beamdog could shoehorn the existing EE engine to run PST:EE, does that mean it's D&D2e? Would this give wotc any sort of claim on the Planescape universe that they don't currently have? This sounds like a bad thing. Apart from that, I don't think it matters if PST is done using 2.x or 3.x at all in any way, because it's just an engine, and getting PST working in that engine is really only possible by breaking the rules of D&D, to the extent that the engine allows this?
Comments
I don't know why nobody pays me much heed no matter how much I repeat it: Goldbox... on Infinity Engine... 6 games... easy cash cow!
That's not what I'm saying: Goldbox are as D&D as you can get and predate the IE. They're stricter than BG, with loathesome level limits and human favoritism because of it.
So no, don't ditch D&D, the IE works... why throw it away with the baby and the bathwater... or however the saying goes.
your quote is incomplete - the offered answer is actually: *none of the above* (ditch d&d altogether, make a completely separate game etc.)
as you can see, that goes for all other ideas not just for those two random examples i came up with.
i'd believe that you honestly misunderstood the answer if you only hadn't selectively quoted.
Make IWD2 in 3.XEE.
Make BG3 in 4th or 5th Edition.
iwd2 is excluded from the poll
use basic logic and read the poll and op if you're going to take part in it pls.
I plan to buy adventure Y but I don't plan to buy IWD EE. I enjoyed IWD, I replayed it 5 times and then I was done; fully cooked, time for the fork.
1. PST. The Torment ruleset is really the torment ruleset -- it is kinda sort of 1.5 or 2.1 with the dual classing rules stretched to the breaking point. Trying to make it fit another ruleset? Procrustes. Procrustes, I say. I'd like to play that game again and would be happy to pay a modest amount for a game that would play on a modern computer. So yes to PST, no to PST 3rd ed.
2. I thought IWD II was fair at best -- only played it once, didn't think it was as good as IWD I. Not so bad that I asked for refund but I decided that was my last Black Isle game. No interest at all.
3. I'd like to see someone else make BG3 -- perhaps Ossian (sp?) studios.
Neera was a great addition to the BG series but the other NPCs aren't as good as the original cast. At this point I see the other NPCs as an annoyance I wish I could remove from the game: no 'Hexxat' I don't want to recruit you, stop asking every time I walk into the inn . . . Dorn, I've killed you 3 times, why do you keep respawning? And, you, Monk why do I need to go through so much dialogue options to get you to go away? Get! All of you! I wish I could use that splash screen to uninstall y'all.
I really hope that some other developer can look at what Beamdog has done right and what they have done badly and find a way to build on what worked. Reviving a classic -- good idea. BD's decision to take on more projects than it could handle -- bad idea. Quick loot? Good idea. Hexxat? bad. Dorn? bad . . .
If you want to see a 3rd edition game encourage BD to take on the Temple of Elemental Evil -- best 3rd edition engine to date. Loads of bugs and the devs never really fleshed out the NPCs but I had lots of fun whacking low level monsters. It also seems like the sort of game Beamdog want to make.
. . . But . . . if this is the only way BG3 gets made? Maybe. Perhaps. Not sure.
The only reason I can imagine a Baldur's Gate 3 being made is for the name tie-in. The power of a franchise name can't be ignored in the marketing world. In terms of story it's hard to imagine how it could all tie together given the seeming finality at the end of Throne of Bhaal, the over one hundred year time jump, and at least two world shattering events which have happened since.
Icewind Dale 3 probably would, as some have noted, be a better choice since the games are based more on the setting than on a connecting story. It's a new group of adventurers so time jumps and upheavals mean less. The IWD series wasn't exactly a blockbuster though, and I'm not sure the name would have as much potential sales impact as the Baldur's Gate name, so there would be less reason for a game to use the name.
The Forgotten Realms is a large place and yet the games have touched only on a small percentage of the potential. Beamdog could step away from the familiar areas and make their own mark on regions as-of-yet unexplored.
Still, If they do decide to release EEs of Torment or IWD2 I'll be happy to try those. I'm not so much against the idea of more EEs as I am eager to see the company show us their best creation skills.
And who cares if the rules are "more modern"? If the game is fun, that's all that matters.
2) Don't bother with IWD2.
3) Make BG3 in Pathfinder.
I don't find any new Enhanced Editions particularly exciting or worthwhile, unless there is a whole bunch of previously cut content that justifies making IWD2:EE. Not that I will be buying it, but some people may be intrigued by it.
While BG3 / IWD3 or whatever brand new game title sounds intriguing in theory, I'd rather Beamdog didn't develop them unless they improve their story writing, which I found somewhat lacking and inconsistent.
For the being, I think DLC-sized content (think Adventure Y) for a modest price is fine. Grander projects like those mentioned above can wait.
If they later take on any other project, well, can't comment on that since I don't know what they have on mind.
If I come only from my own preference I would vote for releasing IWD2:EE with the same rules as in the vanilla game. It would finish the circle, make a good ending to EE-ing IWD.
After that I would vote for making IWD3. From what I've seen so far, a game like that can be really what Beamdog are capable of. And a separate, new game would be exactly what is needed in order to understand if they can make BBGNext or not. Right now I don't see how they can make such a complicated game, full of NPC interaction and detailed quests. Not only it's a hard question if BG3 can ever be made, there're questions about what should be in that game, what plot line should it have, what company should do it, what graphics should be used.
And to get a look at Beamdog's abilities in terms of creating a new game (not EE-ing, but making something new from scratch) we should taste IWDNext, I think. Both Black Pits show they can make a rather solid combat line with interesting fights. I'm almost certain IWDEE will be a success and get better reviews and fan reception than BGEE. I'm sure many IE fans would try a new game that looks like and feels like like IWD. These thing combined point me to the fact IWD3 can be the best choice.
And as far as I know, a new game should definitely use the latest D&D setting - it's a "hardware" demand of WoTC.
And about PSTEE - I'm afraid in the wake of the new Torment game it wouldn't be the best idea to release an old game in a renowned engine. The new game would simply look better. Some people think PST cannot be even enhanced because it's already ideal.
So, IWD2EE - IWD3 - BGNext.
The larger issue, IMO, is that it would be very difficult to make the case that Beamdog should be trusted with that job. Trent Oster has admitted on more than one occasion that they botched the BG EEs; BG2:EE is now going on eleven months with zero support (other than the devs clucking their tongues and agreeing that the situation sucks).
What might help them is IWD:EE, assuming they can release and maintain it at a reasonable rate. Because that's basically the same job they'd be expected to do with PST:EE - 90% technical work (no NPCs, no original plot content), 10% restoring cut content.
As for BG3, well BG3 doesn't exist. They could code up anything, and just as easily slap IWD3 on it as BG3. This is purely marketing, and if the name gets them more sales, great.
Finally, a comment on some of the hate Beamdog's drawing. Wow. As a developer myself, I know the pain of being pressured to release before you're ready .. and then getting crapped on for releasing a buggy product. I think they did a pretty good job, and currently probably employ most of the developers still interested in BG? So really, I'm betting they are less likely to stuff up BG3 than any software house you'd care to name. Atari presumably hold the IP, do you really want them to have a go?
As for 5e, well I've seen 2.x in the BGs, I've seen what presumably was 3.x in NWN2, and I really can't remember what NWN1 used. Clearly no-one shall speak of 4e, but I'd be interested to see what 5e was like. If it's really nasty .. well I suppose it comes down to whether WotC allow new development using old edition rules? This may actually explain the rise of RPGs that eschew D&D entirely.
It is also a dialogue heavy game, with a lot of conversation options tied to the protagonist's stats. Switching to a skill based system would be a huge amount of work and significantly change the game's dynamic.
HP tables also follow dualclassing rules.
what beamdog conceivably could add is the ability to become a cleric (the class exists in the engine and there's a cleric NPC but you can't become one which is kinda sad)
another good choice for adding a class would be monk.
paladin, ranger, druid, bard and sorcerer in my opinion would not fit in. barbarian could be made a kit (for low int dumb-mode characters:)
...kits actually could be added instead of the "specialization bonus" that you pick at levels 7 and 12 so that you get to pick a kit when you reach lvl7 and a kit related bonus or ability at level12.
so for example the nameless one might become a berserker upon deciding so. it might not fit in the game aesthetically for some people it would still be better than the way tackier (at least for me) stat boost.
- berserker, kensai and wizard slayer (ungimped) seem like reasonable kits for the game's setting and tone to me
- assassin and bounty hunter feel perfectly appropriate (but swashbuckler definitely not)
- picking a magic school specialization makes sense. same goes for wild magic.
- when it comes to clerics, being devoted to a particular faith does not make roleplaying sense and as it would interfere with the protagonist's metaphysical disorientation (to put it that way) but choosing a sphere could be implemented
to add some more roleplaying coherence to kits and certain classes, their choice might tied up to what faction you belong to...
therefore in my opinion there's room for adding things to PS:T. i don't think that it's a much more "perfect" game than BG1 which experienced the same level of alteration. BG2 didn't experience alteration but it got substantial new content.
I think I understand why WotC wants all new games to match their latest D&D editions - they need to sell copies of source books and modules to survive as a company. Apparently, they still make most of their profit by creating new editions and trying to get people to buy and collect all the new source materials. Thus, they only want to license new games that help them with their sales goals and business model.
You aren't learning new skills, you are remembering old ones.
You could certainly add things from the BG2EE if you put in one or two new characters. I already suggested a bard. You wouldn't use existing kits though. The design of PST is such that each character should have their own unique kit. For example, the only cleric can't use any weapons at all.
I imagine that wotc will only allow IWD2:EE to be released using 3.x, or the latest version. This would call for heavy modifications to the EE engine, or an entirely new engine. Once a EE3 engine exists, it would make sense to put out an EE version of any 3.x game that they can access the license for. I assume NWN1 is not on the table? If the 3.x list is too short, it probably won't pay to build a new engine, and even modifying the existing engine might become too expensive.
Back to PST:EE. It really sounds to me like PST didn't / shouldn't use D&D at all. Does the original box actually say D&D anywhere? The new kickstarter Torment doesn't seem to. Also who actually holds the Planescape license?
That said, if Beamdog could shoehorn the existing EE engine to run PST:EE, does that mean it's D&D2e? Would this give wotc any sort of claim on the Planescape universe that they don't currently have? This sounds like a bad thing. Apart from that, I don't think it matters if PST is done using 2.x or 3.x at all in any way, because it's just an engine, and getting PST working in that engine is really only possible by breaking the rules of D&D, to the extent that the engine allows this?