Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Categories

Planescape: Torment: Enhanced Edition has been released! Visit www.planescape.com to purchase and check for details. Planescape: Torment: Enhanced Edition Official Soundtrack is available.
Soundtracks for BG:EE, SoD, BG2:EE, IWD:EE are now available in the Beamdog store.
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

What will the next big project be? Thoughts and wishes.

IWDIWD Member, Translator (NDA) Posts: 10
Now that Icewind Dale II EE is off the table because of the source code issue, what do think will be Overhaul's next big project to earn some cash? What are your wishes besides your thoughts? I know Baldur's Gate III will be high on everyone's list, but what else is there you'd like to discover?

Personally, I hope IWD II EE will be possible some day down the road, but for the time being I'd like to see another IWD addon to be made. It should be something linking the two games together and therefore being set in the like 30 years between those. It maybe could be around Oswald Fiddlebender as a main NPC who we all once met in Kuldahar with our first group and who we saw again in Targos with a new group of adventurers. I'd also like to get to know what happened to my old party which fought against Belhifet and later on challenged Icasaracht, before they seemed to have vanished forever and only stories being told. It could tell us more about Luskan or other parts of the Ten Towns. Certainly we MUST have a look on Kuldahar again, because it is such a cool place to be (if only just for the great theme).

Comments

  • JumboWheat01JumboWheat01 Member Posts: 984
    I would like to see them do a game much more loyal to the 5e rules than Sword Coast Legends. Maybe something set outside of the Sword Coast area. There's more to the Realms than the Sword Coast. I still have a secret desire for a game/adventure set in Thay, to see what the normal Thayans are like. All my experience with them are through Red Wizards, and only one of them was nice(-ish.)
    kanisathahelmo1977
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,162
    Update Quest for Glory... totally necessary for the good of humanity.
  • semiticgodsemiticgod Member, Moderator Posts: 5,988
    Undertale: Enhanced Edition
    ThacoBell
  • deltagodeltago Member Posts: 4,247
    BG:EE:EE

    In the search for the IWD2 source code, they stumbled across the lost art assets of the BG series.
    tbone1bob_veng
  • IWDIWD Member, Translator (NDA) Posts: 10
    deltago said:

    In the search for the IWD2 source code, they stumbled across the lost art assets of the BG series.

    Is that a wish or a fact?
  • tbone1tbone1 Member Posts: 639
    edited July 18
    Bob's Burger's: Enhanced Edition. Louise kidnaps Jimmy Junior to pay for new bunny ears. In a flashback, she is confirmed to be a Bhaalspawn as Linda remembers a drunken night at the premiere of a local production of Sedaka!, a musical based on lame music from the early sixties. You have to help Linda rescue her family (plus Teddy, who,sorta is) within the dark depths of Neb's pan-dimensional flower shop, The Petal Phile.
    Sunderronaldo
  • ChroniclerChronicler Member Posts: 17
    Personally I think it'd be cool if they did some small projects.

    Just like create some new kits or some new NPC's as smaller scale DLC's.
    Antipatiko
  • RaduzielRaduziel Member Posts: 1,011
    edited July 19
    IWD 2.X

    And DLCs with Warlock, Psionic and Favored Soul.

    Maybe an NPC for each.

    But with IWD 2.X I would be happy enough to stay as a Beamdog's customer.
  • CvijetaCvijeta Member Posts: 116
    IWD3 - with 5ed. rules or/and set outside Forgotten realms - does not need to be IWD setting, just plain party rooster and grinder, creating your own party like in NWN2:SOZ and/or IWD2, that would be great.
    urpo6700
  • RawgrimRawgrim Member Posts: 621

    I would like to see them do a game much more loyal to the 5e rules than Sword Coast Legends. Maybe something set outside of the Sword Coast area. There's more to the Realms than the Sword Coast. I still have a secret desire for a game/adventure set in Thay, to see what the normal Thayans are like. All my experience with them are through Red Wizards, and only one of them was nice(-ish.)

    Thay is overrun by demons and undead during the time of 5ed, so you won't get to see much of what normal Thayans are like. The events that actually cause the 5ed rule changes in the Forgotten Realms happen around 500 years after the BG games, as well. So if Beamdog makes BG3 and it uses the 5ed rules it would have to be set 500 years later too. Meaning all the non-elf NPCs will be very dead.
    JumboWheat01
  • AstroBryGuyAstroBryGuy Member Posts: 2,725
    Well, the computer games haven't always followed the rules canon timeline. IWD2 is set 50-60 years before BG1, yet uses 3E rules.
  • RawgrimRawgrim Member Posts: 621
    edited July 19
    Yes but the changes in the 3ed rules aren't tied to the history and the lore at all. The 5ed changes happen due to a major event involving the gods and plenty of other things. So basically if you use 5ed in a game set right after BG2 you have one massive plot-hole. It would be like a historical game set in the victorian age and just add uzis and cellphones "because current".
    Shikao
  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 7,215
    Rawgrim said:

    Yes but the changes in the 3ed rules aren't tied to the history and the lore at all.

    Technically they were... the canon rationale seems to be that when Vecna became a god and entered Sigil, it was contrary to the rules of the multiverse. He was going to destroy everything and re-make it all in his own image, but was taken down before he could do so. However, what little time passed in that state cause the multiverse to shudder and change, etc. etc.

    And then a few months later they published 3E.

    Weak? Oh yeah - super weak. But it's how they handled it, tying official lore to functional rule changes. And then they did it again (4E) and again (5E). Why they do this is beyond me. It's utterly stupid. I don't think it happened between 1E and 2E... it just started with "here is a cool game world for you to play in, and here are some rules to play by," and then later they said "here are some alternate, updated rules you can use to play in that game world." The world itself didn't have to change. That was eminently sensible.
    ThacoBellRaduziellolientbone1
  • JumboWheat01JumboWheat01 Member Posts: 984
    Rawgrim said:

    Meaning all the non-elf NPCs will be very dead.

    ...Watch Xan still be alive somehow, despite his pessimism.
    ThacoBelltbone1Balrog99
  • MornmagorMornmagor Member Posts: 1,154
    Considering my complete antipathy towards 5th edition, i won't like whatever it involves rules-wise, but then again, i wasn't a big fan of the 2nd edition either.

    I hope it is something new, however. At least Gaider's presence puts hope in that direction. Also, outside of Infinity Engine.

    Something completely new.

    And if, let's say if, they decided to ditch the d&d name altogether and create a new system, like so many games have(Elder Scrolls, Dragon Age), even better.
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,162

    Rawgrim said:

    Yes but the changes in the 3ed rules aren't tied to the history and the lore at all.

    Technically they were... the canon rationale seems to be that when Vecna became a god and entered Sigil, it was contrary to the rules of the multiverse. He was going to destroy everything and re-make it all in his own image, but was taken down before he could do so. However, what little time passed in that state cause the multiverse to shudder and change, etc. etc.

    And then a few months later they published 3E.

    Weak? Oh yeah - super weak. But it's how they handled it, tying official lore to functional rule changes. And then they did it again (4E) and again (5E). Why they do this is beyond me. It's utterly stupid. I don't think it happened between 1E and 2E... it just started with "here is a cool game world for you to play in, and here are some rules to play by," and then later they said "here are some alternate, updated rules you can use to play in that game world." The world itself didn't have to change. That was eminently sensible.
    Wasn't the Avatar crisis related to a big product launch, or am I missremembering? I thought that was meant to launch 2nd ed. Changed how Gods were a bit at least.
  • AstroBryGuyAstroBryGuy Member Posts: 2,725
    Rawgrim said:

    Yes but the changes in the 3ed rules aren't tied to the history and the lore at all. The 5ed changes happen due to a major event involving the gods and plenty of other things. So basically if you use 5ed in a game set right after BG2 you have one massive plot-hole. It would be like a historical game set in the victorian age and just add uzis and cellphones "because current".

    The Time of Troubles in 1358 DR marks the transition from 1st Edition to 2nd Edition rules by the canon timeline. IWD takes place in 1281 DR, and IWD2 takes place circa 1311 DR - both firmly in the era of 1st Edition rules. Yet, I don't see any massive gaping plot holes due to IWD using 2nd Edition rules or IWD2 using 3rd Edition rules.
  • AstroBryGuyAstroBryGuy Member Posts: 2,725
    Rawgrim said:

    The events that actually cause the 5ed rule changes in the Forgotten Realms happen around 500 years after the BG games, as well. So if Beamdog makes BG3 and it uses the 5ed rules it would have to be set 500 years later too. Meaning all the non-elf NPCs will be very dead.

    No. The Sundering begins takes place in 1482-1488 DR. That's 115-120 years after BG2, not 500.


    Also, Abdel Adrian and Viekang (and Coran!) appear in the Sundering-era adventure, Murder in Baldur's Gate.
  • RawgrimRawgrim Member Posts: 621

    Rawgrim said:

    Yes but the changes in the 3ed rules aren't tied to the history and the lore at all. The 5ed changes happen due to a major event involving the gods and plenty of other things. So basically if you use 5ed in a game set right after BG2 you have one massive plot-hole. It would be like a historical game set in the victorian age and just add uzis and cellphones "because current".

    The Time of Troubles in 1358 DR marks the transition from 1st Edition to 2nd Edition rules by the canon timeline. IWD takes place in 1281 DR, and IWD2 takes place circa 1311 DR - both firmly in the era of 1st Edition rules. Yet, I don't see any massive gaping plot holes due to IWD using 2nd Edition rules or IWD2 using 3rd Edition rules.
    Nothing in the FR lore changes actually changed the rules of the game though. Magic still worked the same in 2ed etc.

    The changes brought in by 4 and 5ed completely changed how magic works. Not to mention the huge changes to the FR setting itself. With a new race popping up and a lot of main NPCs in the world getting killed off due to the effects of the 4ed changes. Several gods as well.
  • RawgrimRawgrim Member Posts: 621

    Rawgrim said:

    Yes but the changes in the 3ed rules aren't tied to the history and the lore at all.

    Technically they were... the canon rationale seems to be that when Vecna became a god and entered Sigil, it was contrary to the rules of the multiverse. He was going to destroy everything and re-make it all in his own image, but was taken down before he could do so. However, what little time passed in that state cause the multiverse to shudder and change, etc. etc.

    And then a few months later they published 3E.

    Weak? Oh yeah - super weak. But it's how they handled it, tying official lore to functional rule changes. And then they did it again (4E) and again (5E). Why they do this is beyond me. It's utterly stupid. I don't think it happened between 1E and 2E... it just started with "here is a cool game world for you to play in, and here are some rules to play by," and then later they said "here are some alternate, updated rules you can use to play in that game world." The world itself didn't have to change. That was eminently sensible.
    Quite right. It was very stupid. And if someone develops an rpg set in the FR setting now, their hands are a bit tied because of it. If the death of several gods happen in "200 years" and the effects of that is why the magic system is what it is in 5ed, you pretty much have to comply with it.

    I don't remember the 3ed rules being changed due to events in the timeline of the Forgotten Realms though. Spells and all that worked the same as in 2ed. The saving throws and stuff like that got changed by that was just mechanics.
  • AstroBryGuyAstroBryGuy Member Posts: 2,725
    edited July 20
    Rawgrim said:

    Rawgrim said:

    Yes but the changes in the 3ed rules aren't tied to the history and the lore at all. The 5ed changes happen due to a major event involving the gods and plenty of other things. So basically if you use 5ed in a game set right after BG2 you have one massive plot-hole. It would be like a historical game set in the victorian age and just add uzis and cellphones "because current".

    The Time of Troubles in 1358 DR marks the transition from 1st Edition to 2nd Edition rules by the canon timeline. IWD takes place in 1281 DR, and IWD2 takes place circa 1311 DR - both firmly in the era of 1st Edition rules. Yet, I don't see any massive gaping plot holes due to IWD using 2nd Edition rules or IWD2 using 3rd Edition rules.
    Nothing in the FR lore changes actually changed the rules of the game though. Magic still worked the same in 2ed etc.
    The Time of Troubles was created to explain the rules changes from AD&D 1E to 2E. And yes there were significant rule changes:
    * Assassins disappeared as a class in 2E (and the guilds disappeared from Faerun).
    * Illusionists changed from a Magic-User subclass with their own XP table, HP table, and spell lists/tables into a specialist wizard (something added for 2E).
    * Bards change from a Fighter/Thief/Druid triple-class into an arcane-casting rogue-class
    * etc..

    From the Realms Roundtable archives, the FR setting team discussed the decision not to create an in-game event for the 2E->3E transition (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fr/20010221), during which they acknowledge that the Time of Troubles gave "an in-game reason for the [1E->2E] rules shifts".

    In the second part of this month's roundtable, we asked the Forgotten Realms design team about whether the gods would once again play a significant role in the edition change like they did in the previous one (the Time of Troubles). Is there anything like that taking place this time around?

    Rich Baker: Crap, no!
    James Wyatt: No, no, no, no, no.
    Jim Butler: Absolutely not.
    Sean Reynolds: Not in terms of deities.
    Rob Heinsoo: Right. No big Realms Shakers with the gods.
    Rich Baker: We deliberately stayed away from anything like the Avatar Crisis as an explanation for the edition change.
    James Wyatt: We've tried throughout to avoid any kind of RSE ("Realms-Shaking Event") to give an in-game reason for the rules shifts that have happened.
    Rawgrim said:

    The changes brought in by 4 and 5ed completely changed how magic works. Not to mention the huge changes to the FR setting itself. With a new race popping up and a lot of main NPCs in the world getting killed off due to the effects of the 4ed changes. Several gods as well.

    The Time of Troubles killed off several gods as well. Bhaal (patron god of assassins in 1E) getting killed by Cyric also killed off every character of the 1E assassin class (including PCs!), since there was no assassin class in 2E. This almost included Artemis Entreri from the Drizzt novels, but R.A. Salvatore managed to convince TSR to retcon Artemis into a fighter/thief (who just happened to kill for money).
    ShikaoThacoBell
  • AstroBryGuyAstroBryGuy Member Posts: 2,725
    Rawgrim said:

    Rawgrim said:

    Yes but the changes in the 3ed rules aren't tied to the history and the lore at all.

    Technically they were... the canon rationale seems to be that when Vecna became a god and entered Sigil, it was contrary to the rules of the multiverse. He was going to destroy everything and re-make it all in his own image, but was taken down before he could do so. However, what little time passed in that state cause the multiverse to shudder and change, etc. etc.

    And then a few months later they published 3E.

    Weak? Oh yeah - super weak. But it's how they handled it, tying official lore to functional rule changes. And then they did it again (4E) and again (5E). Why they do this is beyond me. It's utterly stupid. I don't think it happened between 1E and 2E... it just started with "here is a cool game world for you to play in, and here are some rules to play by," and then later they said "here are some alternate, updated rules you can use to play in that game world." The world itself didn't have to change. That was eminently sensible.
    Quite right. It was very stupid. And if someone develops an rpg set in the FR setting now, their hands are a bit tied because of it. If the death of several gods happen in "200 years" and the effects of that is why the magic system is what it is in 5ed, you pretty much have to comply with it.

    I don't remember the 3ed rules being changed due to events in the timeline of the Forgotten Realms though. Spells and all that worked the same as in 2ed. The saving throws and stuff like that got changed by that was just mechanics.
    2E->3E was a *major* rules change (especially compared to 1E->2E), but there was no Realms Shaking Event associated with it (see the Realms Roundtable archive quote above). Translating a 1E PC into 2E was relatively simple (unless you had a bard PC). Going from 2E->3E was a major PITA.

    IWD and IWD2 demonstrate that it is perfectly fine to create a game with a ruleset that doesn't fit the canon timeline. IWD having 2E bards doesn't create a rip in the space-time-ruleset continuum that sucks your PC into the Outlands. As long as the game is fun, it can use whatever ruleset the creators want (or what WotC will let them use :wink: )
    ShikaoThacoBell
  • IWDIWD Member, Translator (NDA) Posts: 10
    edited July 20
    3rd Edition at least gave you more space to develop your character into certain directions beyond the creation process. My first playthrough of IWD II didn't have any multiclassing at all. All my characters (druid, cleric, illusionist, fighter and ranger) were doing their jobs in perfect purity till the end of the game. In my second trial I thought I could go into excess with multiclassing just one character and being experimental. Sadly, it's been that long that I forgot about what I mixed together back then. I think it was a druid/cleric/mage combo to develop the ultimate caster. Whatever it was, it seems to have worked out since I don't have bad memories about it.

    Charater development felt totally different between 2nd and 3rd Edition, but gameplay just felt the good old same way, stumping through the frozen north, tracking down and slaying hordes of enemies. Forget about an excessive storyline, just give me something straight forward and hordes to kill. That's IWD. Great stuff!
    Post edited by IWD on
    ShikaoCvijeta
  • RawgrimRawgrim Member Posts: 621

    Rawgrim said:

    Rawgrim said:

    Yes but the changes in the 3ed rules aren't tied to the history and the lore at all. The 5ed changes happen due to a major event involving the gods and plenty of other things. So basically if you use 5ed in a game set right after BG2 you have one massive plot-hole. It would be like a historical game set in the victorian age and just add uzis and cellphones "because current".

    The Time of Troubles in 1358 DR marks the transition from 1st Edition to 2nd Edition rules by the canon timeline. IWD takes place in 1281 DR, and IWD2 takes place circa 1311 DR - both firmly in the era of 1st Edition rules. Yet, I don't see any massive gaping plot holes due to IWD using 2nd Edition rules or IWD2 using 3rd Edition rules.
    Nothing in the FR lore changes actually changed the rules of the game though. Magic still worked the same in 2ed etc.
    The Time of Troubles was created to explain the rules changes from AD&D 1E to 2E. And yes there were significant rule changes:
    * Assassins disappeared as a class in 2E (and the guilds disappeared from Faerun).
    * Illusionists changed from a Magic-User subclass with their own XP table, HP table, and spell lists/tables into a specialist wizard (something added for 2E).
    * Bards change from a Fighter/Thief/Druid triple-class into an arcane-casting rogue-class
    * etc..

    From the Realms Roundtable archives, the FR setting team discussed the decision not to create an in-game event for the 2E->3E transition (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/fr/20010221), during which they acknowledge that the Time of Troubles gave "an in-game reason for the [1E->2E] rules shifts".

    In the second part of this month's roundtable, we asked the Forgotten Realms design team about whether the gods would once again play a significant role in the edition change like they did in the previous one (the Time of Troubles). Is there anything like that taking place this time around?

    Rich Baker: Crap, no!
    James Wyatt: No, no, no, no, no.
    Jim Butler: Absolutely not.
    Sean Reynolds: Not in terms of deities.
    Rob Heinsoo: Right. No big Realms Shakers with the gods.
    Rich Baker: We deliberately stayed away from anything like the Avatar Crisis as an explanation for the edition change.
    James Wyatt: We've tried throughout to avoid any kind of RSE ("Realms-Shaking Event") to give an in-game reason for the rules shifts that have happened.
    Rawgrim said:

    The changes brought in by 4 and 5ed completely changed how magic works. Not to mention the huge changes to the FR setting itself. With a new race popping up and a lot of main NPCs in the world getting killed off due to the effects of the 4ed changes. Several gods as well.

    The Time of Troubles killed off several gods as well. Bhaal (patron god of assassins in 1E) getting killed by Cyric also killed off every character of the 1E assassin class (including PCs!), since there was no assassin class in 2E. This almost included Artemis Entreri from the Drizzt novels, but R.A. Salvatore managed to convince TSR to retcon Artemis into a fighter/thief (who just happened to kill for money).

    * There were still assassins in Faerun. And you could play as an assassin by using a Thief Kit class. Still not tied to the lore at all though. Just because you can't play as something doesn't mean the world doesn't have it. If some god burned all the assassins and that is why they aren't in the Realms, sure. Inclusion of a assassin class at that point would be silly. Plus one can still be an assassin. All you have to do is kill people for money. Cyric killing all the current assassins doesn't mean new ones can't spring up shortly after.

    *Illusionist getting tied to a different class is just mechanics. Nothing to do with the lore and it affects nothing in the Forgotten Realms world.

    *Bards. Same as my reply above.

    What 4 and 5ed do is alter the way magic works in the Forgotten Realms. Due to an event 200 years after BG. That makes it different. The world and society is changed, not just some changes to classes or mechanics. Classes and stuff like that are "off the board" anyway. They are just stats and mechanics. But the magic and how it works is basically the science of the Forgotten Realms. So what happened during the Sundering was that the Realms just got "an I-phone". Major event.

    As for that Roundtable thingy. The brilliant minds behind ruining the Realms with their "lets turn FR into WoW" ideas, are not being completely honest. The Sundering IS a major event and the magic system, and how the magic and the weave itself works, has been completely changed since the time of the BG games. Most of it happened during the Spellplague, and carried on into 5ed. Which means a new game set before those events, but still has the effects of those events, would just be a massive plot hole.
  • helmo1977helmo1977 Member Posts: 309

    Rawgrim said:

    Yes but the changes in the 3ed rules aren't tied to the history and the lore at all.


    Weak? Oh yeah - super weak. But it's how they handled it, tying official lore to functional rule changes. And then they did it again (4E) and again (5E). Why they do this is beyond me. It's utterly stupid. I don't think it happened between 1E and 2E... it just started with "here is a cool game world for you to play in, and here are some rules to play by," and then later they said "here are some alternate, updated rules you can use to play in that game world." The world itself didn't have to change. That was eminently sensible.
    Are you serious?

    The 1st to 2nd edition rule changes was explained by... the Time of Troubles (I am sure you have heard of it)

    DreadKhan
  • subtledoctorsubtledoctor Member Posts: 7,215
    edited July 21
    Meh. I was never much into Forgotten Realms. So they wrote some lore that corresponded with rule changes... okay, that's fine for them. But that was just one setting among several. And the rule changes didn't actually mean much - you could use either ruleset in either time period. There were a number of official supplements that had pre-Time of Troubles Faerun running in 2E rules - e.g. Cormanthyr and Netheril. So, a little bit of retconning, in one campaign setting (of several) didn't actually have much functional difference. TSR did it right: the ruleset and setting lore were independent (even if occasionally coincident).
    Post edited by subtledoctor on
  • AstroBryGuyAstroBryGuy Member Posts: 2,725

    Meh. I was never much into Forgotten Realms. So they wrote some lore that corresponded with rule changes... okay, that's fine for them. But that was just one setting among several. And the rule changes didn't actually mean much - you could use either ruleset in either time period. There were a number of official supplements that had pre-Time of Troubles Faerun running in 2E rules - e.g. Cormanthyr and Netheril. So, a little bit of retconning, in one campaign setting (of several) didn't actually have much functional difference. TSR did it right: the ruleset and setting lore were independent (even if occasionally coincident).

    Ummmm, it wasn't just FR that TSR linked the rules and lore.... There was Fates of Istus for Greyhawk. :mrgreen:

    http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17363/WG8-Fate-of-Istus-1e-2e?it=1
    TSR came up with an innovative answer: epic storylines that fans could play through, and that would explain the changes to the world. The Forgotten Realms' Avatar event (1989) is the best-known transition between AD&D 1e and 2e, but Greyhawk's own event, WG8: Fate of Istus (1989) actually preceded it by a few months. For the most part it's just an epic story, as a plague falls across Oerth, but the last section of the adventure also explains one of the biggest changes in the new edition.
  • DreadKhanDreadKhan Member Posts: 3,162
    Cool, didn't know they were trying the same thing simultaneously in Greyhawk, as I'm wwwaaayyy less familiar with it.
  • RVNSRVNS Member Posts: 31
    Well in the spirit of getting back on track for what the original question was, I would love to see Baldurs gate 3 myself. I would like to see it take place in some place other than the sword coast though. IWD2ee would be amazing as well. Things I wouldn't mind seeing are small mods that could be downloaded for on the cheap. I feel like they would sell well and add some extra play through value. Just thoughts.
Sign In or Register to comment.