I have actually played a lot of NWN1-2 and IWD2 and enjoy the system, but... 1E-2E are "My" rules sets of choice. As I said, the further along the game rules sets go, the more it seems to me to be focused on individual characters instead of group play. Where in 2E it was all about the group and each character plays a role in the group, in 3E and beyond it seems more focused towards the individual being "Balanced" and able to do just about everything.
Why wouldn't it be up to WotC? They hold the license, so it'd make sense that it'd be their choice. It's not a matter of them having to force the developers to change; all WotC would have to do is refuse to grant the devs the license if they aren't going to use the newest ruleset and, boom, no BG3.
I'm no lawyer (god forbid) but I would think that WoTC in fact GRANTED the license (or use of ) to use the modified 2E version for the BG series (in return for $$) and thus may not be able to stop the license holder from continueing to use that license within the series - they no doubt still have to be paid for it's use but they may not be able to force them to change to a new version (depending of course on how the original deal with them was forged)
All speculation of course on my part but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilty.
I don't think that the D&D license is bundled together with the BG franchise. I'm guessing that the contract was negotiated for each game individually, or maybe negotiated to allow for X number of D&D games in the next Y years, meaning that any games made after this would require a new agreement. AFAIK, Beamdog had to negotiate a new deal in order to release BG:EE. So I don't think that owning the rights to the BG franchise automatically means you have the rights to develop additional games using the D&D 2E ruleset.
Why wouldn't it be up to WotC? They hold the license, so it'd make sense that it'd be their choice. It's not a matter of them having to force the developers to change; all WotC would have to do is refuse to grant the devs the license if they aren't going to use the newest ruleset and, boom, no BG3.
I'm no lawyer (god forbid) but I would think that WoTC in fact GRANTED the license (or use of ) to use the modified 2E version for the BG series (in return for $$) and thus may not be able to stop the license holder from continueing to use that license within the series - they no doubt still have to be paid for it's use but they may not be able to force them to change to a new version (depending of course on how the original deal with them was forged)
All speculation of course on my part but I don't think it's out of the realm of possibilty.
WotC WAS able to force Bioware to publish ToB before they were ready because the licence was about expire. I expect any BG3 property would require all new terms with whoever publishes. I HOPE its Overhaul and they're able to use 2E. But WotC has no financial stake in promoting a "dead" rules set, so they are unlikely to be very interested.
I think the best possibility is if they can be convinced that as an older property with limited appeal in the current market, the game will be most successful if it honors its roots and uses the existing game engine and rules set. At least that's how I'd present it to WotC.
Devs have said unequivocally that BG3 will not use the Infinity engine. They have stated they plan to build a brand new game from the ground up. Partly due to the loss of the original 3D artwork (it's just too much to remodel the existing game), and partly because the Infinity engine is so unwieldy (even cleaned up as it is with the EEs). And I suspect also that WotC probably wants a brand new game in HD that has tie-ins with their other current products at that time. They have announced that BG3 will use an isometric 2D perspective, though.
As I said, the further along the game rules sets go, the more it seems to me to be focused on individual characters instead of group play. Where in 2E it was all about the group and each character plays a role in the group, in 3E and beyond it seems more focused towards the individual being "Balanced" and able to do just about everything.
In 4e, individual is only valuable in his ability to contribute to the group, and the group is the minimal unit of combat. There's plenty wrong with 4e, but that concern has very specifically been addressed.
2e allows spell-casters to basically solo encounters -- they can't do that in 4e. You need a party to tango.
Ok, let me put it another way. In 3E-3.5E (I have never played 4E, nor do I wish too), the focus was much more heavily on PvP rather than PvM (at least in NWN series). Everything was such that any character could pick up any skill/ability and meld it into the 'Perfect' character. Spells were much more "Balanced" such that your wizard could 'Tank' if need be, etc....
In 1E and 2E, Wizards were wizards, Thieves were thieves (not Rogues) and Clerics were monster... I mean Clerics. You very rarely could swap one class out for another class. or to put it another way "Men were real men. Women were real women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centuri were REAL small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri."
If you needed a lock picked or a trap disarmed, you turned to the thief; you didn't ask if anyone in the party could deal with it. If someone was hurt, you turned to the Cleric, not ask who had healing magic to spare. And if you needed a monster clobbered with a weapon, you turned to the fighter in the group, not the wizard.
I never played PnP 3E-3.5, and I am not a purist or elitist. I get that there was some deviation from the rules in order to fit into NWN, but I'd go so far as to say that NWN had more than merely 'Some D&D flavor'. The game was built and designed around the D&D system.
And the problem I saw was that the entire rules system was such that you could mix and match character classes, I'd say my feeling of the PnP rules is pretty accurate based on playing NWN for those factors at least.
I only played the single-player campaigns for NWN, so the multi-player environment isn't what I'm talking about here. If the multi-player environment was mostly PvP, that's a failing of the game -- that NEVER happens at my table, in any edition of D&D, and I've played all of them (including DDNext).
For the solo campaign, I noticed that NWN changed spells so you could solo as a Mage. NWN also changed opponents so you could solo as a Fighter -- and high level Fighters were more powerful than mages, which is 100% the opposite of 3e or 3.5e.
BG3 (or BG:Next) will most definitely not use the 4e rules. I'm pretty sure by the time BG3 leaves early development, D&D:Next will be already out.
I'd also say the chance of BG3/Next using 2e AD&D is zero. No way.
It was already a stretch to have BG2 using 2e, considering 3e was already out at that point (and as you can see, a lot of compromises were made to make the game more in line with 3e).
BG3 (or BG:Next) will most definitely not use the 4e rules. I'm pretty sure by the time BG3 leaves early development, D&D:Next will be already out.
I'd also say the chance of BG3/Next using 2e AD&D is zero. No way.
It was already a stretch to have BG2 using 2e, considering 3e was already out at that point (and as you can see, a lot of compromises were made to make the game more in line with 3e).
Totally agree here, but with the caveat that Edition Next may make it possible to craft a customized ruleset that uses some of the best elements of 2nd edition AD&D. I have not played Next. But articles I've read about it report that it is very modular and customizable, in order to give players freedom to shape the game to their preference.
BG3 (or BG:Next) will most definitely not use the 4e rules. I'm pretty sure by the time BG3 leaves early development, D&D:Next will be already out.
I'd also say the chance of BG3/Next using 2e AD&D is zero. No way.
It was already a stretch to have BG2 using 2e, considering 3e was already out at that point (and as you can see, a lot of compromises were made to make the game more in line with 3e).
And thats why i hate the new classes.... they are 3rd edition not 2nd edition... i hate the monk cuz it's 3rd edition monk not 2nd also barbarian and the sorcerer... all of them have a 2nd edition version wich are better than 3rd edition version.....
2nd edition monks is the closest you can get to chinise and japanise fantasy monk....after all monk use unarmed combat, spells and prayers... 3rd edition monk doesn't do that... they are more like a super specilized fighter with extra unarmed abilities
Totally agree here, but with the caveat that Edition Next may make it possible to craft a customized ruleset that uses some of the best elements of 2nd edition AD&D. I have not played Next. But articles I've read about it report that it is very modular and customizable, in order to give players freedom to shape the game to their preference.
Yep, probably that too. As long as it's available for PC I'll be happy, though.
Problem is, from what I have seen of the upcoming 'Neverwinter' game, I won't buy that. If they try and push it further and further towards a hack and slash - zero originality and negligible RPG elements "Action RPG", I will be just as happy to play BG and IWD and ToEE and NWN2 instead.
I played the 'Dark alliances' games much to my shame. I don't want that for a next gen D&D license. I'm not 5 years old anymore.
Yep, probably that too. As long as it's available for PC I'll be happy, though.
Problem is, from what I have seen of the upcoming 'Neverwinter' game, I won't buy that. If they try and push it further and further towards a hack and slash - zero originality and negligible RPG elements "Action RPG", I will be just as happy to play BG and IWD and ToEE and NWN2 instead.
I played the 'Dark alliances' games much to my shame. I don't want that for a next gen D&D license. I'm not 5 years old anymore.
I don't think that there's necessarily anything wrong with games like that (I actually happen to like the Dark Alliance games), but I just don't see why they feel the need to make it a D&D game if they're not going to follow any of the rules. Whether or not it's D&D licensed probably won't matter to people who don't play D&D, and it's probably just going to alienate people who actually do play D&D (or even flat out anger them, if they feel misled).
The problem I had with the later rules is that they became more about roll-playing than role-playing. And by this I mean the players spend more time working out how to get the best out of the rules than they do working out how their characters should act.
In the games I ran were focused on the story and characters. If you wanted to try some out-of-the-box tactic then I'd just use my common sense to determine how likely it was to work. Anyone bringing the complete book of to my games would discover I felt that the core rulebooks gave plenty of framework for the game mechanics.
The problem I had with the later rules is that they became more about roll-playing than role-playing. And by this I mean the players spend more time working out how to get the best out of the rules than they do working out how their characters should act.
In the games I ran were focused on the story and characters. If you wanted to try some out-of-the-box tactic then I'd just use my common sense to determine how likely it was to work. Anyone bringing the complete book of to my games would discover I felt that the core rulebooks gave plenty of framework for the game mechanics.
You have no idea how much this post means to me. Well, I mean, splatbooks are cool, and all, but only within reason.
Comments
2e allows spell-casters to basically solo encounters -- they can't do that in 4e. You need a party to tango.
In 1E and 2E, Wizards were wizards, Thieves were thieves (not Rogues) and Clerics were monster... I mean Clerics. You very rarely could swap one class out for another class. or to put it another way "Men were real men. Women were real women, and small furry creatures from Alpha Centuri were REAL small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri."
If you needed a lock picked or a trap disarmed, you turned to the thief; you didn't ask if anyone in the party could deal with it. If someone was hurt, you turned to the Cleric, not ask who had healing magic to spare. And if you needed a monster clobbered with a weapon, you turned to the fighter in the group, not the wizard.
And the problem I saw was that the entire rules system was such that you could mix and match character classes, I'd say my feeling of the PnP rules is pretty accurate based on playing NWN for those factors at least.
For the solo campaign, I noticed that NWN changed spells so you could solo as a Mage. NWN also changed opponents so you could solo as a Fighter -- and high level Fighters were more powerful than mages, which is 100% the opposite of 3e or 3.5e.
I'd also say the chance of BG3/Next using 2e AD&D is zero. No way.
It was already a stretch to have BG2 using 2e, considering 3e was already out at that point (and as you can see, a lot of compromises were made to make the game more in line with 3e).
2nd edition monks is the closest you can get to chinise and japanise fantasy monk....after all monk use unarmed combat, spells and prayers... 3rd edition monk doesn't do that... they are more like a super specilized fighter with extra unarmed abilities
This movie is a excellent 2nd edition monk
a balance.
I played the 'Dark alliances' games much to my shame. I don't want that for a next gen D&D license. I'm not 5 years old anymore.
Do you hear that, die roller?
In the games I ran were focused on the story and characters. If you wanted to try some out-of-the-box tactic then I'd just use my common sense to determine how likely it was to work. Anyone bringing the complete book of to my games would discover I felt that the core rulebooks gave plenty of framework for the game mechanics.