Howdy, Stranger!

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

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!

BG3 confirmed

1246719

Comments

  • KhyronKhyron Member Posts: 547
    I'd say Charname would live for a very long time, despite shattering the throne of bhaal.. Divine created people don't just become mundane mongrels over night.

    I always thought charname would live for a long time regardless of race.

    typo_tillyGrond0scriverProont
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 6,974
    kanisatha said:

    Grond0 said:

    kanisatha said:

    I really don't understand why it is so hard for some people to understand that any new D&D game will, with absolute certainty, use the current rules edition of D&D. Please try and explain to me the logic that would compel WotC to set aside the rules edition they're currently trying to promote as much as possible, you know, because it is the *current* edition, and in its place push a rules edition that is as far as they're concerned long dead and buried and no longer actively supported by WotC. Oh, and saying "because I think 2e is the best" won't count.

    I don't disagree that 5th edition is much more likely, but I don't see how you can entirely rule out 2nd edition. After all we've already had one new game in 2nd edition recently and, unless someone has revealed the licensing agreement for that, who's to say there's no possibility of more?
    Not true. SoD was specifically an expansion to an existing game and not a standalone game, and that was precisely why it was allowed to use the same rules edition as the game for which it was an expansion. WotC has explicitly ruled out the use of old editions for new games, so yes it is entirely ruled out.
    I agree the licensing requirement required a tie-in with the existing game. Unless you've seen the license agreement though, how do you know whether a further game is possible? It doesn't seem too far-fetched to me to imagine that a title called Baldur's Gate 3 would have a tie-in with an existing game ...

    typo_tilly
  • wildfirewildfire Member Posts: 69
    Just as Inqusition was a clean slate storywise, it had tie ins with previous Dragon age games through NPC characters. I can't see why BG3 can't do the same.
    Anything can be done.

    scriver
  • WatchForWolvesWatchForWolves Member Posts: 171
    edited October 2018
    If it's really called "Baldur's Gate 3" then I have little hope for it. I mean, more than usual considering the current state of cRPGs which sacrifice verisimilitude for "balance".

    There are two reasons why they would go with that name:

    - The game is related to BG and BG2. Horrible choice. CHARNAME's saga is over. Prequel is not needed and wouldn't make any sense given the way level progression works. Sequel is impossible and would be dogshit if you played a level 20+ character right off the bat anyway.
    - The game is not related to BG and BG2 hovewer they called it "Baldur's Gate 3" just because people recognize the name. It's a brand, and one that was not milked to death yet. Bonus points if it doesn't take place in or near Baldur's Gate at all, lol.

    First option is incomeptence, second is malice.

    scriverThacoBellProont
  • dunbardunbar Member Posts: 1,600
    LadyRhian said:

    deltago said:

    LadyRhian said:

    If your character was an elf or a dwarf, it's very possible you CHARNAME could still be alive. Gray Elves (aka Sun Elves) Could live up to 425+ years in AD&D 2e. Hill Dwarves live 250+, Mountain Dwarves 300. Moon Elves (High Elves) live for 350+ years (Plus because the stated age is considered venerable by the standards of the race. Human venerable age is 90. Gnome venerable age is 200. Half-elves are 130. Half-Orcs, 60.

    You can find a list of ages here: http://people.wku.edu/charles.plemons/ad&d/races/age.html

    Baldur’s Gate 3: Escape From Crooked Retirement Home. A Dungeon Crawl for the Elderly.
    When breaking your hip is more of a danger than actual monsters!
    Baldur's Date 3: The Alzheimer's Years. When you really can start all over again, and again.......

    (NB. I'm not mocking those with Alzheimer's, my mother has it - and often laughter helps.)

    scriverThacoBelllolienProont
  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694
    My Dad had it, too. I know the feeling.

    scriverThacoBellProont
  • BelgarathMTHBelgarathMTH Member Posts: 5,632
    ThacoBell said:

    BG3 well the strory is almost closed the only option for charname role i his struggle as a new deity.
    Without ridiculous amnesia trick like those in old Gothic there is only this way with his god-like ;) powers.

    Not even that would make sense. There are two possible endings to ToB, godhood AND mortalhood. Going either way would completely invalidate about half of the players' stories.
    Didn't Wizards of the Coast canonize that Adrian Abdel rejected godhood with that 5th edition module they released? I would expect any BG3 to be related to that module as a backstory, and that it would no longer be about Charname (Adrian), but about a new character somehow influenced by and set on the path to adventure by the events of BG1 and BG2.

    Grond0killerrabbitProontGrammarsalad
  • JoenSoJoenSo Member Posts: 909
    I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: a story about a bhaalspawn that somehow knows that they are not the one mentioned in the prophecy would be great. A dark, depressing tale about fate, and in the end your character would die a meaningless death. And you as a player ask yourself what the point of it all was. You couldn’t change anything and you didn’t learn anything from your character’s unfortunate and unavoidable demise.

    ...what’s not to like?

    ProontSkatan[Deleted User]
  • megamike15megamike15 Member Posts: 2,628
    the problem is all the bhaalspawns were wiped out by the end of tob.

  • JoenSoJoenSo Member Posts: 909

    the problem is all the bhaalspawns were wiped out by the end of tob.

    Exactly!

  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,278
    Grond0 said:

    kanisatha said:

    Grond0 said:

    kanisatha said:

    I really don't understand why it is so hard for some people to understand that any new D&D game will, with absolute certainty, use the current rules edition of D&D. Please try and explain to me the logic that would compel WotC to set aside the rules edition they're currently trying to promote as much as possible, you know, because it is the *current* edition, and in its place push a rules edition that is as far as they're concerned long dead and buried and no longer actively supported by WotC. Oh, and saying "because I think 2e is the best" won't count.

    I don't disagree that 5th edition is much more likely, but I don't see how you can entirely rule out 2nd edition. After all we've already had one new game in 2nd edition recently and, unless someone has revealed the licensing agreement for that, who's to say there's no possibility of more?
    Not true. SoD was specifically an expansion to an existing game and not a standalone game, and that was precisely why it was allowed to use the same rules edition as the game for which it was an expansion. WotC has explicitly ruled out the use of old editions for new games, so yes it is entirely ruled out.
    I agree the licensing requirement required a tie-in with the existing game. Unless you've seen the license agreement though, how do you know whether a further game is possible? It doesn't seem too far-fetched to me to imagine that a title called Baldur's Gate 3 would have a tie-in with an existing game ...
    Not a "tie-in"; literally it had to be an expansion. You cannot buy SoD by itself nor play it by itself without also having BG:EE installed. This was widely discussed right here in these forums back during SoD's announcement where Beamdog folks confirmed this was the only way for SoD to be 2e.

    No D&D video game of any kind (again noting that expansions don't count) has EVER been made using a rules edition that was not the current edition when the game was being made. You're not ever getting a 2e D&D game. But feel free to cling to your false hope if you wish.

    ThacoBellscriverProontArtona
  • killerrabbitkillerrabbit Member Posts: 402
    Two things --

    1. I think @BelgarathMTH has it right. It will probably be based on cannon in the aftermath of the murder in Baldursgate and the rise of Bhaal. The new charname could be a scion of abdel or just somone who was passing through Baldur's Gate when events went down.

    2. Any comments about licensing agreements made by people who aren't part of the negotiations and haven't see the agreements can be dismissed out of hand. I know some people think they have divined the form of the agreements from a few scattered comments from devs and loads of speculative fiction from fans but this isn't Faerun and divination spells don't actually work. Agreements are just that -- agreements. They are legal forms that spell out an agreement. If (*if*) WotC believes that 2nd edition will sell more copies it will be 2nd. If it believe that BG3 is the ideal platform to promote 5th it will be 5th. Agreements are negotiated between two parties . . .

    Authoritative statements made on the basis of an agreement that no one has read shouldn't be made and can't be taken seriously when they are made.

    Grond0Proont
  • killerrabbitkillerrabbit Member Posts: 402
    Oh and. I don't know why people aren't happier about this news. A new D & D game is being developed. em woot.

    semiticgoddessProont
  • spacejawsspacejaws Member, Mobile Tester Posts: 370
    kanisatha said:

    Grond0 said:

    kanisatha said:

    Grond0 said:

    kanisatha said:

    I really don't understand why it is so hard for some people to understand that any new D&D game will, with absolute certainty, use the current rules edition of D&D. Please try and explain to me the logic that would compel WotC to set aside the rules edition they're currently trying to promote as much as possible, you know, because it is the *current* edition, and in its place push a rules edition that is as far as they're concerned long dead and buried and no longer actively supported by WotC. Oh, and saying "because I think 2e is the best" won't count.

    I don't disagree that 5th edition is much more likely, but I don't see how you can entirely rule out 2nd edition. After all we've already had one new game in 2nd edition recently and, unless someone has revealed the licensing agreement for that, who's to say there's no possibility of more?
    Not true. SoD was specifically an expansion to an existing game and not a standalone game, and that was precisely why it was allowed to use the same rules edition as the game for which it was an expansion. WotC has explicitly ruled out the use of old editions for new games, so yes it is entirely ruled out.
    I agree the licensing requirement required a tie-in with the existing game. Unless you've seen the license agreement though, how do you know whether a further game is possible? It doesn't seem too far-fetched to me to imagine that a title called Baldur's Gate 3 would have a tie-in with an existing game ...
    Not a "tie-in"; literally it had to be an expansion. You cannot buy SoD by itself nor play it by itself without also having BG:EE installed. This was widely discussed right here in these forums back during SoD's announcement where Beamdog folks confirmed this was the only way for SoD to be 2e.

    No D&D video game of any kind (again noting that expansions don't count) has EVER been made using a rules edition that was not the current edition when the game was being made. You're not ever getting a 2e D&D game. But feel free to cling to your false hope if you wish.
    Not exactly true as on IOS you can buy Siege of Dragonspear on it’s lonesome I believe (I have BG:EE but Siege of Dragonspear appears as it’s own separate app on IOS. I’m guessing trying to work their way around the seperate release/expansion debacle is what delayed it so long.) that said I definitely agree that any new content that is not considered an expansion of said games will be the most current rules.

  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 6,974
    kanisatha said:

    Grond0 said:

    kanisatha said:

    Grond0 said:

    kanisatha said:

    I really don't understand why it is so hard for some people to understand that any new D&D game will, with absolute certainty, use the current rules edition of D&D. Please try and explain to me the logic that would compel WotC to set aside the rules edition they're currently trying to promote as much as possible, you know, because it is the *current* edition, and in its place push a rules edition that is as far as they're concerned long dead and buried and no longer actively supported by WotC. Oh, and saying "because I think 2e is the best" won't count.

    I don't disagree that 5th edition is much more likely, but I don't see how you can entirely rule out 2nd edition. After all we've already had one new game in 2nd edition recently and, unless someone has revealed the licensing agreement for that, who's to say there's no possibility of more?
    Not true. SoD was specifically an expansion to an existing game and not a standalone game, and that was precisely why it was allowed to use the same rules edition as the game for which it was an expansion. WotC has explicitly ruled out the use of old editions for new games, so yes it is entirely ruled out.
    I agree the licensing requirement required a tie-in with the existing game. Unless you've seen the license agreement though, how do you know whether a further game is possible? It doesn't seem too far-fetched to me to imagine that a title called Baldur's Gate 3 would have a tie-in with an existing game ...
    Not a "tie-in"; literally it had to be an expansion. You cannot buy SoD by itself nor play it by itself without also having BG:EE installed. This was widely discussed right here in these forums back during SoD's announcement where Beamdog folks confirmed this was the only way for SoD to be 2e.

    No D&D video game of any kind (again noting that expansions don't count) has EVER been made using a rules edition that was not the current edition when the game was being made. You're not ever getting a 2e D&D game. But feel free to cling to your false hope if you wish.
    My original comment was that I thought a new game would be 5th edition, so I'm not clinging to anything - just making the point that your "absolute certainty" on this is not justified. To me it's quite clear that SoD is a game, whether or not it has to be bought along with other BG games. I don't expect WotC to want to produce another game under the same legal agreement, but it's not impossible they could choose to do so. I don't think this is a useful argument though and won't pursue it any further.

    StummvonBordwehrkillerrabbit
  • fluke13fluke13 Member Posts: 379
    Doesn't Pathfinder Kingmaker use the old 3.5Pathfinder rules, rather than the latest 5.0?

  • scriverscriver Member Posts: 2,072
    edited October 2018
    Fardragon said:

    2nd edition is DEAD.

    I prefer to think of it as having grown up and left the nest ;)
    fluke13 said:

    Doesn't Pathfinder Kingmaker use the old 3.5Pathfinder rules, rather than the latest 5.0?

    [this is bait.gif]

    killerrabbitfluke13
  • voidofopinionvoidofopinion Member, Moderator Posts: 1,248

    the problem is all the bhaalspawns were wiped out by the end of tob.

    Magic.

    :)

    typo_tillyStummvonBordwehrkillerrabbit
  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,278
    Fardragon said:

    Grond0 said:

    kanisatha said:

    I really don't understand why it is so hard for some people to understand that any new D&D game will, with absolute certainty, use the current rules edition of D&D. Please try and explain to me the logic that would compel WotC to set aside the rules edition they're currently trying to promote as much as possible, you know, because it is the *current* edition, and in its place push a rules edition that is as far as they're concerned long dead and buried and no longer actively supported by WotC. Oh, and saying "because I think 2e is the best" won't count.

    I don't disagree that 5th edition is much more likely, but I don't see how you can entirely rule out 2nd edition. After all we've already had one new game in 2nd edition recently and, unless someone has revealed the licensing agreement for that, who's to say there's no possibility of more?
    The whole reason Dragonspear was an expansion pack rather than a stand alone game, which is what Beamdog wanted to make and wouldn't have had the same problems with the iOS port, was Hasbro categorically refused to licence any new 2nd edition games (for reasons that should be pretty obvious).

    2nd edition is DEAD. The only way to do a stand alone game based on 2nd edition rules would be to be completely unlicensed, and even then it would probably get you sued, since the Open Licence Agreement wasn't introduced until 3rd edition.
    Yup. What @Fardragon is saying here is not a "comment" or a "statement". It is fact.

  • kanisathakanisatha Member Posts: 1,278
    fluke13 said:

    Doesn't Pathfinder Kingmaker use the old 3.5Pathfinder rules, rather than the latest 5.0?

    It does. Pathfinder 2.0 was released after the P:K Kickstarter had ended. At that time on the Owlcat forums people asked the devs if they were going to have to switch to 2.0 and they responded that since the game was already far into development Paizo was sticking with 1.0 for P:K, including for any expansions for it, but the implication was that Owlcat would have to use 2.0 for a future new game.

    fluke13ProontGrammarsalad
  • killerrabbitkillerrabbit Member Posts: 402
    kanisatha said:



    Yup. What @Fardragon is saying here is not a "comment" or a "statement". It is fact.

    I hope you are trolling. If you are, you hooked me -- well done :)

    But let's just pretend you aren't. How -- on earth -- could you be so confident about the contents of documents you haven't read or the minds of people you aren't speaking with? Seriously, where does this confidence come from? Because I only feel right making such strong declarations of "fact" when I have the facts at hand.

    (and if you aren't being serious I tip my hat to you)

    I mean sure, I'm happy to agree that the game is *likely* to be 5th edition with a Murder in Baldur's Gate tie in but *certain*? Nope, not certain.

  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,831
    @killerrabbit: It is against the Site Rules to publicly accuse another forumite of trolling. See Rules 6 and 10:


    6. Do not troll, flame or make personal attacks.

    Flaming any member of the community, including members of the development team, will not be tolerated.

    If you feel that someone is directly attacking you on a personal level, or if you feel that someone is being intentionally offensive to someone else, please notify the forum moderators using the "Flag" feature on the relevant post, and they will take care of it.

    Trolling will not be tolerated as well. Being belligerent and antagonistic, or provoking other members intentionally, will be considered in the same light as trolling.

    Again, if you think you are being trolled, or if you see someone trolling someone else, please notify the forum moderators using the "Flag" feature on the relevant post.

    10. Moderators’ decisions are final.

    Report any inappropriate content to the forum moderators. There's a button on every post - "Flag".

    If you see a post that you think breaks one of the rules, click "Flag", then "Report". A window will pop up. Choose the rule that you think the post is breaking. If you're not sure, choose "Other". Provide any additional details in the Notes section. Press "Send Report".

    Do this instead of engaging with the problem yourself in-thread. Let the moderators decide how to deal with any issues between users.

    These reports are completely private, seen only by the forum moderators, so don’t worry about retaliation or backlash.
    The "Flag" feature and PMs to moderators are the only acceptable responses to trolling, real or imagined. Public accusations are not tolerated here.

    There will be no further discussion of trolling in this thread.

    ThacoBellmlnevese
  • killerrabbitkillerrabbit Member Posts: 402
    I'm sorry but I disagree with this. I think there is a significant difference between the playful repartee that I think I may or may not have detected and the ugly, antagonistic provocations that he have seen on these forums and to which we all object. I enjoy @kanisatha 's posts and thought I had communicated that. I wasn't accusing, I was using a phrase that is often used on online forums to communicate a sense of playful disbelief as in "tell me you are joking" or "you can't be serious". Perhaps I could have used one of those phrases but, truthfully, why should I?

    Forum rules are expressions of community values and I think this is a case of excessive moderation and an overly literal interpretation of the words I used. Of course it is in your power to sanction me for discussing the interpretation of the forum rules but I don't think that would be an appropriate use of your power. Over moderation and the excessive reliance upon rules creates a hostile atmosphere. I think it's been on a problem on these forums for a while but had gotten better in recent years.

    Lower the ban hammer if you must, censor if you wish but I won't self censor when I think the rules have been inappropriately applied, my beliefs are more important to me than my account.

    typo_tillykanisathaPecca[Deleted User]
  • typo_tillytypo_tilly Member Posts: 5,702
    Yeah, I think it was just friendly banter. :)

    killerrabbit
This discussion has been closed.