Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Categories

Dark Dreams of Furiae - a new module for NWN:EE! Buy now
Attention, new and old users! Please read the new rules of conduct for the forums, and we hope you enjoy your stay!

Baldur's Gate "3.75"

Flame_ExcessFlame_Excess Member Posts: 26
edited June 2020 in Baldur's Gate III
Hi guys,

I often lurk around to read others' opinion and content. And what I realised is that I don't seem to be the only one so far being disappointed in BG3.

This poll shows how deep the divide is: 39% of people who seemed satisfied (before playing), as opposed to a majority of 41% who aren't plus 19% who wouldn't say they are:

Yes: 39%
No: 41%
Maybe: 19%

Given that most BG1/BG2 players are hardcore fans and therefore should definitely look forward to any BG3, that percentage is huge. But why is this happening? This comes as a surprise since BG3's first apparition here (85% for versus 15% against), there was an apparent 45% drop in satisfaction. We could understand that from the number of differences in setting and rules, as well as from graphics (3d), gameplay (turn-based), and plot, this made people go away from it. This made me wonder if it is really BG because it's called BG, whereas most of us here (41%) seem to answer "no".

Similarly like there was a consortium around the idea that 4th edition would be so cool post 3e, but then there seems to be a clan who sticked to the old and went for "3.75" (Pathfinder). Maybe BG should have never moved as far as the next edition, but nonetheless now that it has, there seems to be a reasonable amount of people, who disagree with the move from BG2 to BG3 as seen by Larian Studios, the same way that people chose to stay with the 3e. I believe if that game existed, there would be many people willing to have another try at a "3.75" BG game.

That's where Beamdog comes in.

I know there's been a lot of criticism with Beamdog's BG:SoD, but at least they can get the credit for making more of what we expected, right? I personally found more satisfaction with Beamdog's additions than with Larian Studios' offering of BG3. I, for one, would be sure to find a sequel to the series of BG2 (post-godhood), for example to link the events of BG2 and BG3 (as an expansion to BG2 (same as SoD was to BG1 and BG2)), more enjoyable than BG3.

My particularly favorite sequel would be if, for example, we were to follow the close story of Sarevok Anchev going onto beating an army of Orcs in Berdusk, then ruling at his side under his fiecesome reign in Westgate, and finally standing on the edge following his disappearance to Kara-Tur in front of an army of Cyrician followers under the psyonic control of Mind flayers (BG3-linkage), or something set in a kind of parallel universe where the hero does not reach godhood as a good deity.

Since Beamdog's role was decisive in keeping the game, I'm convinced that Beamdog should try and roll with this idea and try to keep the game again, this time only true to its fans.

EDIT: Since the discussion has sort of moved along to determining what is BG and what is not, allow me to ask you: if you had to keep only 3 of the following 5 major aspects to remake the game:

1. DnD lore (Forgotten Realms); 2. ruleset (DnD 2-3e); 3. graphics (2d); 4. gameplay (Real-time with pause); 5. plot (Time of Troubles); which would they be?

Post edited by Flame_Excess on
«13

Comments

  • hybridialhybridial Member Posts: 280
    I totally want Beamdog to make more Infinite engine based content, I actually really love the engine for what it is.

    I feel however something like Icewind Dale is more realistically within their scope. (and honestly after Dragonspear I don't really want them involved in Baldur's Gate's actual storytelling). Since Icewind Dale 2's source code may never be found, An Icewind Dale 3 would be interesting, or something new.

    But I'd definitely want them to keep the storytelling to a basic minimum and just give us a straightforward adventure.

    leeuxRahonaOstrimo
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,876
    I am honestly more interested in a new IP from Beamdog than another rehearsal of already existing D&D franchises. Bonus points if it has nothing to do with the stale, medieval fantasy setting known as Forgotten Realms. I had my fair share of Baldur's Gate to last me another decade or so. Now I thirst for something completely different.

    ThacoBellRik_Kirtaniya
  • Flame_ExcessFlame_Excess Member Posts: 26
    @hybridial

    If you like the kind of Infinity engine game, then sorry to disappoint but Wizards of the Coast won't allow for a comeback to DnD unless it's in DnD5e, and the Infinity engine being outdated, it's unreasonable to make a new game without using another engine - so no Infinity unless... Siege of Dragonspear was an exception, and that's why I'm looking forward to a second exception. If it's been done once, it can be done twice. As for holding the rights to follow a BG game without the franchise, I assume it would be possible to get permission from Larian to do it. If they refuse, then too bad, at least you can't blame yourself - but I don't see why they would say no if they can cash in on that.

    @Kamigoroshi

    I know Beamdog has had a rough time, but that's no valid reason to stray from its fair fan base. I'm convinced Trent Oster even founded Beamdog company for the foremost reason of bringing more BG to its fans. Although there is much to thank for its work, Beamdog would be nothing if it wasn't for this dream. And I'm sure Beamdog can do better than pleasing fans now lusting for a completely different genre.

    @DJKajuru

    I also think I know what it takes not just to sell, but to have a game made: for anything nice and new, this business requires having a lot of money. As it stands now, they're probably cash-strapped, so their next creation will have to be amateur. They could try going big, but in the end, they need to sell! Yet if they can't even make that much money out of a highly favored remake classic, how do you expect them to make out of a new cringy, underground, rogue game that's no Pathfinder nor Pillars of Eternity? My, my... the only way they could hit a success is really to continue with what they already have: either more remakes, or an expension to BG that would please their real fan base.

    If I was Trent right now, I'd try betting on the latter.

  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,187
    I don't want anything linking real Baldur's Gate to the blatant title cash grab that is coming out now. So no, no new BG expansions for me. The BG story is done and settled. There isn't anymore room for further Bhaalspawn adventures.

    kanisathamegamike15leeux
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,308
    edited June 2020
    I am honestly more interested in a new IP from Beamdog than another rehearsal of already existing D&D franchises. Bonus points if it has nothing to do with the stale, medieval fantasy setting known as Forgotten Realms.

    I totally agree with the first sentence, but not the second one as I remain very much an FR fan even as I have become disillusioned with D&D mechanics. I can agree that the setting is "stale" if games just keep going back to the Swordcoast or Icewind Dale or Neverwinter. But there are soooooo many other very interesting areas within the Realms.

    Balrog99RedRodentenergisedcamelÆmrys
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,876
    kanisatha wrote: »
    I can agree that the setting is "stale" if games just keep going back to the Swordcoast or Icewind Dale or Neverwinter. But there are soooooo many other very interesting areas within the Realms.
    I could let it slide if WotC had any intention at all to let video game adaptions actually use those truly interesting places as their setting. But no. It always, always, always, aLwAyS, AlWaYs, AAALWAAAYS has to be either the Sword Coast, Waterdeep or Icewind Dale. I am tired of seeing those locations over and over again. So... very.... tired.

    To be honest, at this point in time the only locations which interest me anymore inside Faerun are Chessenta, Mulhorand and Unther. I just see no way in Baator for WotC to greenlight future IP's with either of those three countries as their main locations. Might just as well wait until Owlcat does an adaption of the Mummy's Mask AP. That will probably be as close as we can get to Mulhorand inside a cRPG. And don't get me started with the diminutive likelihood of ever seeing other continents of Toril such as Maztica, Zakhara or Osse. Because we might just as well call the whole planet "Faerun". At least that's what Wizards apparently think anyway... *sigh*
    /rant

    ThacoBell
  • megamike15megamike15 Member Posts: 2,633
    they use the sword coast as it's the safe area. so you tend to see the more interesting fr settings in expansion packs like mask of the betrayer but those don't sell as well.

  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,308
    kanisatha wrote: »
    I can agree that the setting is "stale" if games just keep going back to the Swordcoast or Icewind Dale or Neverwinter. But there are soooooo many other very interesting areas within the Realms.
    I could let it slide if WotC had any intention at all to let video game adaptions actually use those truly interesting places as their setting. But no. It always, always, always, aLwAyS, AlWaYs, AAALWAAAYS has to be either the Sword Coast, Waterdeep or Icewind Dale. I am tired of seeing those locations over and over again. So... very.... tired.

    Sad but very true. It's why I have moved on from FR to Golarion and Eora.

    Kamigoroshi
  • PsicoVicPsicoVic Member Posts: 830
    edited June 2020
    I do not think WoTC is actively thwarting games based in the older versions of D&D: The game "knights of the chalice" are already made and "Knights of the Chalice 2" is already in Kickstarter, and both games are in D&D 3.5.
    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1848628223/knights-of-the-chalice-2-revolutionise-old-school-crpgs

    I think after some setbacks they became very protective with their big brands, like Baldur´s gate and of course, they are more interested in selling and promoting his new product, D&D5e.

    The thing that puts off most people about BG3 is that I think Old-BG-Games-Fans-only are not the main target audience of the game anymore. They do not find inspiration in the older games, but in the new edition 5e lore, settings, aesthetics and mechanics so the result is pretty different. I think Larian and WoTC are making the game they want to do from the start, It´s just that it´s not based in the BG trilogy and it was never meant to be.

    We will have "Solasta" soon, also based in 5e, but some other game based in old versions would be welcome, you´ve never had enough of those.
    I agree that different settings like Ravenloft, Eberron or Wyldemount would be welcome, for a change.

    kaja8
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    Osse

    Why do? Imagine how ridiculous it would be. You take a step. You're bitten by a snake! Make a DC 20 Con saving throw. You fail and fall over. You're bitten by a spider! Make a DC 20 Con saving throw. You try to treat the poison with some eucalyptus. But there's an angry bear in the tree! You take damage and have to make a Con saving throw against syphilis. You use a dash action to move 30 feet. Make 6 Con saving throws. A dire rabbit-camel appears! It's guts you for 20 hit points. A giant crocodile appears! It bites you for 20 hit points and you have to make a Str check to not drown. An Emu-Man appears in full armour and saves you from the crocodile and the kangaroo, but all Emu-Men are chaotic evil. He throws you off a cliff into the water. You finally think you're safe, there's nothing in the water except the tiniest cutest little jellyfish. You pet it. Make a DC 40 Con saving throw.

    Ridiculous!

    kanisatha
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,876
    scriver wrote: »
    Ridiculous!
    You forgot the venomous were-platypus inside that water. Everything is just miles better with were-platypuses in it. Clearly Osse should be the new standard campaign setting for D&D 5.5th edition henceforth.

    scriver
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,308
    scriver wrote: »
    Osse

    Why do? Imagine how ridiculous it would be. You take a step. You're bitten by a snake! Make a DC 20 Con saving throw. You fail and fall over. You're bitten by a spider! Make a DC 20 Con saving throw. You try to treat the poison with some eucalyptus. But there's an angry bear in the tree! You take damage and have to make a Con saving throw against syphilis. You use a dash action to move 30 feet. Make 6 Con saving throws. A dire rabbit-camel appears! It's guts you for 20 hit points. A giant crocodile appears! It bites you for 20 hit points and you have to make a Str check to not drown. An Emu-Man appears in full armour and saves you from the crocodile and the kangaroo, but all Emu-Men are chaotic evil. He throws you off a cliff into the water. You finally think you're safe, there's nothing in the water except the tiniest cutest little jellyfish. You pet it. Make a DC 40 Con saving throw.

    Ridiculous!

    LOL. But D&D in general feels exactly this way to me nowadays.

  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,308
    PsicoVic wrote: »
    I do not think WoTC is actively thwarting games based in the older versions of D&D: The game "knights of the chalice" are already made and "Knights of the Chalice 2" is already in Kickstarter, and both games are in D&D 3.5.
    https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1848628223/knights-of-the-chalice-2-revolutionise-old-school-crpgs

    I think after some setbacks they became very protective with their big brands, like Baldur´s gate and of course, they are more interested in selling and promoting his new product, D&D5e.

    The thing that puts off most people about BG3 is that I think Old-BG-Games-Fans-only are not the main target audience of the game anymore. They do not find inspiration in the older games, but in the new edition 5e lore, settings, aesthetics and mechanics so the result is pretty different. I think Larian and WoTC are making the game they want to do from the start, It´s just that it´s not based in the BG trilogy and it was never meant to be.

    We will have "Solasta" soon, also based in 5e, but some other game based in old versions would be welcome, you´ve never had enough of those.
    I agree that different settings like Ravenloft, Eberron or Wyldemount would be welcome, for a change.

    But none of these other games are D&D games. Yes they may use D&D mechanics, but it's truly a D&D game only when a D&D setting is involved because it is the D&D lore that really matters.

    ThacoBell
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    That's... no. Dnd settings is just a scene. It's the mechanics that makes something DnD.

    BallpointManPsicoVic
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,187
    scriver wrote: »
    That's... no. Dnd settings is just a scene. It's the mechanics that makes something DnD.

    No I don't think I agree with this. D&D settings have this...nearly slapdash feel to them. Like a pot of chili that you just throw everything in that you can think of. Its almost like watching a really earnest B-movie that the whole crew and cast believes in even though its more than a little silly, but also somehow has a AAA budget.

    D&D may be the mainstream standard, but it still FEELS different from other settings. The setting is absolutely as much an integral part of the experience as the mechanics.

    megamike15kanisathaleeuxZaxares
  • PsicoVicPsicoVic Member Posts: 830
    edited June 2020
    Well, Sword coast legends, Neverwinter online and Baldur´s Gate: Dark alliance, FR: DemonStone are in the FR setting of D&D and, personally, I only include those games as D&D games in my darkest nightmares :p
    You know, the one that you fall for hours and end up naked in the middle of the class, everybody is laughing at you and an unfathomable horror is pursuing you and you are paralyzed and then you receive a notification in the cell telling you that they are going to make a sequel of SwordCoastLegends, the best and only D&D videogame ever made... and you wake up screaming and drenched in sweat.

    Post edited by PsicoVic on
    sarevok57
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,308
    PsicoVic wrote: »
    Well, Sword coast legends, Neverwinter online and Baldur´s Gate: Dark alliance, FR: DemonStone are in the FR setting of D&D and, personally, I only include those games as D&D games in my darkest nightmares :p
    You know, the one that you fall for hours and end up naked in the middle of the class, everybody is laughing at you and an unfathomable horror is pursuing you and you are paralyzed and then you receive a notification in the cell telling you that they are going to make a sequel of SwordCoastLegends, the best and only D&D videogame ever made... and you wake up screaming and drenched in sweat.
    Or is it just me? anyone else has it? no?

    Except for that Neverwinter Online and BG:DA have a lot of fans and Neverwinter has even won critical praise. I personally also like SCL, because it being set in FR is what matters to me and I do not care even in the slightest that that game shreds the D&D mechanics. And by contrast with you, I am not going to be counting BG3 as a D&D game. So this is very much subjective.

    Nobody, including especially WotC of course, counts a game using the D&D rule-set as a D&D game. Both Solasta and Realms Beyond have been extremely sensitive to NOT calling their games D&D games, and during their KS campaigns when some fan referred to the games as D&D games they were very quickly corrected by the devs insisting that their game was NOT a D&D game. D&D lore is what makes something D&D, because lore is what ultimately separates D&D from other similar RPG systems (e.g. The Dark Eye).

  • BallpointManBallpointMan Member Posts: 1,626
    edited June 2020
    I think D&D is both a ruleset of sorts and lore. If you took all of the rules of D&D and replaced them with an edition of Vampire from the World of Darkness, I wouldnt consider that to be playing D&D anymore.

    As lore goes, there are some fundamental concepts that are indistinguishable from lore: Such as there being Humans/Elves/Gnomes - as well as planes of existence and a pantheon to go with them. D&D kind of loosely ties this together by assuming (I think) everything is happening in the same universe.

    Lastly - I personally would reject that D&D is a setting. Since the game encourages DMs to create a world or setting from scratch, I dont think I would say any setting is D&D. Just my opinion.

  • PsicoVicPsicoVic Member Posts: 830
    edited June 2020
    kanisatha wrote: »
    And by contrast with you, I am not going to be counting BG3 as a D&D game. So this is very much subjective.
    You may like the design choices of Larian or not, but BG3 has the (D&D5e) mechanics, the D&D(5e) Forgotten realms setting the (D&D5e) aesthetics, the D&D(5e) license and the D&D(5e) lore, so I think that you cannot be more a D&D game than that... but to each their own.

    DinoDinBallpointManJuliusBorisov
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    edited June 2020
    As lore goes, there are some fundamental concepts that are indistinguishable from lore: Such as there being Humans/Elves/Gnomes - as well as planes of existence and a pantheon to go with them. D&D kind of loosely ties this together by assuming (I think) everything is happening in the same universe.

    These are all part of the settings, not the rules.

    kanisatha wrote: »
    PsicoVic wrote: »
    Well, Sword coast legends, Neverwinter online and Baldur´s Gate: Dark alliance, FR: DemonStone are in the FR setting of D&D and, personally, I only include those games as D&D games in my darkest nightmares :p
    You know, the one that you fall for hours and end up naked in the middle of the class, everybody is laughing at you and an unfathomable horror is pursuing you and you are paralyzed and then you receive a notification in the cell telling you that they are going to make a sequel of SwordCoastLegends, the best and only D&D videogame ever made... and you wake up screaming and drenched in sweat.
    Or is it just me? anyone else has it? no?

    Except for that Neverwinter Online and BG:DA have a lot of fans and Neverwinter has even won critical praise. I personally also like SCL, because it being set in FR is what matters to me and I do not care even in the slightest that that game shreds the D&D mechanics. And by contrast with you, I am not going to be counting BG3 as a D&D game. So this is very much subjective.

    So what I am hearing is. You count SCL as a DnD game because it is set in FR. But you won't count BG3 as a DnD game despite it being set in FR?

    kanisatha wrote: »
    Nobody, including especially WotC of course, counts a game using the D&D rule-set as a D&D game. Both Solasta and Realms Beyond have been extremely sensitive to NOT calling their games D&D games, and during their KS campaigns when some fan referred to the games as D&D games they were very quickly corrected by the devs insisting that their game was NOT a D&D game. D&D lore is what makes something D&D, because lore is what ultimately separates D&D from other similar RPG systems (e.g. The Dark Eye).

    Literally everyone counts that as being a DnD game. It is the definition of what a DnD game is. DnD is the system, not the settings. Now I don't know what legal traps those guys are trying to protect themselves from by saying they're not DnD games but it's likely this section of the Open Gaming License:
    The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual, d20 System, Wizards of the Coast, d20 (when used as a trademark), Forgotten Realms, Faerûn, proper names (including those used in the names of spells or items), places, Underdark, Red Wizard of Thay, the City of Union, Heroic Domains of Ysgard, Ever-­‐‑Changing Chaos of Limbo, Windswept Depths of Pandemonium, Infinite Layers of the Abyss, Tarterian Depths of Carceri, Gray Waste of Hades, Bleak Eternity of Gehenna, Nine Hells of Baator, Infernal Battlefield of Acheron, Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus, Peaceable Kingdoms of Arcadia, Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia, Twin Paradises of Bytopia, Blessed Fields of Elysium, Wilderness of the Beastlands, Olympian Glades of Arborea, Concordant Domain of the Outlands, Sigil, Lady of Pain, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness, beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar’ri, baatezu, displacer beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-­‐‑ti.

    Which is pure copy right nonsense. Just because they can't use the label DnD because of trademark reason doesn't mean that their game using the DnD system isn't a DnD game.

    As for that last sentence... Just no. The rules is what separated the rule systems from each other. Schwartze Auge isn't even d20 based. You can play DnD in a SA setting and you can play SA in a DnD setting without any issue. You can't play the SA system with DnD rules.

  • megamike15megamike15 Member Posts: 2,633
    if it's not set in the forgotten realms it's not a dnd game.

    ThacoBell
  • KamigoroshiKamigoroshi Member Posts: 5,876
    edited June 2020
    Worth noting is that WotC has a Systems Reference Document guidline for publishing content under the Open-Gaming License. Solasta, Knights of the Chalice 2, as well as Realms Beyond: Ashes of the Fallen all use that one.
    • Pro: It is cheaper than purchasing a "full" D&D license. Waay cheaper.
    • Contra: Developers using the OGL license are unable to utilize any of the locations or characters which are part of the various official campaign settings. Creatures which are not covered under the OGL license (mindflayers, for instance) also cannot be used. For that you need the aforementioned "full" Dungeon Masters Guild license.

    So WotC clearly distinguishes between letting developers use their D&D IP's and let them adapt the ruleset for their own "homebrew" campaign setting.

    kanisathaThacoBell
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,308
    scriver wrote: »
    So what I am hearing is. You count SCL as a DnD game because it is set in FR. But you won't count BG3 as a DnD game despite it being set in FR?

    No that wasn't what I said. The other poster said they wouldn't count SCL as a D&D game. I was merely observing that both SCL and BG3 can be counted as D&D games, but each of us can personally count just one or the other in a subjective way.
    scriver wrote: »
    kanisatha wrote: »
    Nobody, including especially WotC of course, counts a game using the D&D rule-set as a D&D game. Both Solasta and Realms Beyond have been extremely sensitive to NOT calling their games D&D games, and during their KS campaigns when some fan referred to the games as D&D games they were very quickly corrected by the devs insisting that their game was NOT a D&D game. D&D lore is what makes something D&D, because lore is what ultimately separates D&D from other similar RPG systems (e.g. The Dark Eye).

    Literally everyone counts that as being a DnD game. It is the definition of what a DnD game is. DnD is the system, not the settings. Now I don't know what legal traps those guys are trying to protect themselves from by saying they're not DnD games but it's likely this section of the Open Gaming License:
    The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual, d20 System, Wizards of the Coast, d20 (when used as a trademark), Forgotten Realms, Faerûn, proper names (including those used in the names of spells or items), places, Underdark, Red Wizard of Thay, the City of Union, Heroic Domains of Ysgard, Ever-­‐‑Changing Chaos of Limbo, Windswept Depths of Pandemonium, Infinite Layers of the Abyss, Tarterian Depths of Carceri, Gray Waste of Hades, Bleak Eternity of Gehenna, Nine Hells of Baator, Infernal Battlefield of Acheron, Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus, Peaceable Kingdoms of Arcadia, Seven Mounting Heavens of Celestia, Twin Paradises of Bytopia, Blessed Fields of Elysium, Wilderness of the Beastlands, Olympian Glades of Arborea, Concordant Domain of the Outlands, Sigil, Lady of Pain, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness, beholder, gauth, carrion crawler, tanar’ri, baatezu, displacer beast, githyanki, githzerai, mind flayer, illithid, umber hulk, yuan-­‐‑ti.

    Which is pure copy right nonsense. Just because they can't use the label DnD because of trademark reason doesn't mean that their game using the DnD system isn't a DnD game.

    Again except for WotC and the makers of those games saying they are not D&D games. Don't pull the "everyone" bit with me. You may want to label those games as D&D games, but others including WotC say differently.
    Worth noting is that WotC has a Systems Reference Document guidline for publishing content under the Open-Gaming License. Solasta, Knights of the Chalice 2, as well as Realms Beyond: Ashes of the Fallen all use that one.
    • Pro: It is cheaper than purchasing a "full" D&D license. Waay cheaper.
    • Contra: Developers using the OGL license are unable to utilize any of the locations or characters which are part of the various official campaign settings. Creatures which are not covered under the OGL license (mindflayers, for instance) also cannot be used. For that you need the aforementioned "full" Dungeon Masters Guild license.

    So WotC clearly distinguishes between letting developers use their D&D IP's and let them adapt the ruleset for their own "homebrew" campaign setting.

    This is all that I was saying. Frankly, I think the only "controversy" here is that a few people on this forum have made a decision that anything I say they are going to criticize/dispute/reject/attack.

    ThacoBell
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    That was what I was quoting above, you know.

    kanisatha wrote: »
    Again except for WotC and the makers of those games saying they are not D&D games. Don't pull the "everyone" bit with me. You may want to label those games as D&D games, but others including WotC say differently.

    They're not saying it's not a DnD game. They are saying they cannot use the trademark. It's entirely a legal matter and not about the definition of what makes something a DnD game.

  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,308
    edited June 2020
    scriver wrote: »
    That was what I was quoting above, you know.

    kanisatha wrote: »
    Again except for WotC and the makers of those games saying they are not D&D games. Don't pull the "everyone" bit with me. You may want to label those games as D&D games, but others including WotC say differently.

    They're not saying it's not a DnD game. They are saying they cannot use the trademark. It's entirely a legal matter and not about the definition of what makes something a DnD game.

    They are literally saying it's not a D&D game. Literally.

    But I guess by your logic Pathfinder is D&D. Try selling that to either Paizo or WotC. Pathfinder and D&D have exactly the same mechanics. What separates one from the other, and what provides uniqueness to each, and what is strictly copyrighted by each (as opposed to the mechanics which are only extremely loosely copyrighted and fully open to being changed by a game developer using them) is the lore of D&D versus Pathfinder. It's the D&D lore that WotC very strictly protects and preserves under its D&D copyrights, not the D&D mechanics which it gives away to anyone at no cost and with no restrictions on how they choose to use them.

    There is no restriction on anyone wanting to make a game using any edition rules of D&D. There are a lot of people on this very forum pining for a game using 2e or 3.5e D&D rules. Anyone can make such a game. Beamdog can make such a game if they wish. But the game will have to use "homebrew" lore in a non-D&D setting. I am absolutely sure none of the people wanting a 2e/3.5e game will count such a game as a D&D game.

    ThacoBell
  • lroumenlroumen Member Posts: 2,385
    Wait, what? I thought pathfinder was a DnD3.5 mod, so yes it is DnD?

    scriver
  • ThacoBellThacoBell Member Posts: 12,187
    lroumen wrote: »
    Wait, what? I thought pathfinder was a DnD3.5 mod, so yes it is DnD?

    No, they are separate. Pathfinder was someone's attempt to bring back the 3.5 D&D feel when the hated 4e was released. Paizo has no association with WotC.

    megamike15kanisatha
  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    You really have no idea what you're talking about. Pathfinder is based on the open license d20 system (just as d20 Modern, Star Wars d20, and a hundred other systems). And no, they're not exactly alike. Pathfinder modifies and adds to many things from 3.5.

    But yes. It is basically a 3.5 mod. There's a reason Pathfinder is often called DnD 3.75. What makes Pathfinder different from DnD is not the setting (in fact I bet you'll find PF players just as often play games in DnD settings as they do in Golarion unless they're running official modules) but the rule changes between PF and 3.5. You know, the difference between classes and class progression, the new feats and abilities, the additions to the ruleset.

    The open gaming license that was released for 3.5 by the way, if anyone was wondering, is to 3.5 exactly what the open gaming license for 5th ed is to 5th ed. It's a license to use the DnD systems without any of the trademarks and copyrighted words or content. It's basically a way to generate free (as in free for WotC because it is produced by others) and most importantly continous content and buzz for your system. If you know what the DM's Guild is, well, all content on there is licensed under the open gaming license.

    Here's a good article on the origins of Pathfinder in the words of the founder: https://www.polygon.com/2016/8/1/12317888/the-story-of-pathfinder-dungeons-and-dragons-most-popular-offspring

    Here is a pretty in-depth explanation of Pathfinder, 3.5, and the open gaming license as they relate to each other: https://rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/133423/what-is-pathfinders-relationship-to-dd/133429#133429

    JuliusBorisov
Sign In or Register to comment.