Anyone know if WotSC could allow 2e rules for bg3?
mashedtaters
Member Posts: 2,266
I'm sorry if this topic has been done to death, but I don't think I could even look at the game if it was 4e. I would be sick to my stomach.
I was thinking it over, and I believe that it would be impossible to obtain 3e or 3.5e because WotSC is trying to drown out the Pathfinder competition. Thank goodness Pathfinder is holding its own, because I hate 4e.
I suppose overhaul might be able to get something going with Paizo. I might be able to play BG3 with Pathfinder rules, but it would still take some serious consideration--I would have to argue myself into it. Becayse if I wanted to play 3.5e I'd play NWN.
Speculation: I wonder if WotSC is the reason Bioware got away from DND rules in the first place?
IMHO, 2e is the only way to go for any BG game. Don't get me wrong, I like IWD2, but I couldn't stand how much 3rd edition nerfed the ranger and the paladin. Again, sick to my stomach.
Any thoughts?
I was thinking it over, and I believe that it would be impossible to obtain 3e or 3.5e because WotSC is trying to drown out the Pathfinder competition. Thank goodness Pathfinder is holding its own, because I hate 4e.
I suppose overhaul might be able to get something going with Paizo. I might be able to play BG3 with Pathfinder rules, but it would still take some serious consideration--I would have to argue myself into it. Becayse if I wanted to play 3.5e I'd play NWN.
Speculation: I wonder if WotSC is the reason Bioware got away from DND rules in the first place?
IMHO, 2e is the only way to go for any BG game. Don't get me wrong, I like IWD2, but I couldn't stand how much 3rd edition nerfed the ranger and the paladin. Again, sick to my stomach.
Any thoughts?
0
Comments
On the bright side, for you at least, it is really unlikely that it would be 4e in any case. WoTC is currently developing a new edition for D&D, and if Overhaul manages to secure the rights to do BG3, it seems like it will probably be using those new rules.
Personally, I liked 4e. It was certainly a shift, but I think it had some great innovations that get lost in all the hate. One of the criticisms that is often leveled at 4e is that it feels like it was built to be a computer game. If that is true, doesn't it follow that building a computer game based on that ruleset would work pretty well? (A modified version of the ruleset at least, it would be pretty tough to deal with all the 'interrupts')
Anywho, I'm just going to leave my fingers crossed that BG:EE and BG2:EE are successful enough that BG3 gets made at all. I'm very excited about the reemergence of the Isometric RPG (like Project Eternity, Torment: Tides of Numenera, and Wasteland 2) and I'd love to see BG3 join that party, whatever ruleset it ended up using.
But Edition next is at least described as modular and customizable such that it allows players to craft their own ruleset (i.e., accommodates that many use house rules anyway). So one would think it might be able to include key elements of 2nd edition AD&D and kits. But that said, I honestly know nothing of how this reported modularity of Edition Next actually works in practice, nor how much freedom to customize there really is.
I can understand why people wouldn't like 4th edition but isn't the complaint always that it feels like a computer game? Well that just means we have the perfect chance to try it in that setting. I'd love a 4e game, though it looks like we won't get one. Next is going to be a disaster though.
As for making 4e computer game, I think they should leave BG3 out of it, if ever they make one.
On the other hand, BG is a pretty strong brand (certainly not if you compare it to Halo, GTA and so on, but still strong enough to make a little noise 15 years later) and WotC might consider it too valuable to keep it on the "legacy" product line.
It will be interesting to see what all happens. I'm slightly more optimistic I might like an eventual BG3 now!
(That was a joke. The weepy part. In case anyone needed to know.)
http://www.rpgamer.com/games/dnd/daggerdale/reviews/daggerdalestrev1.html
One complaint, in addition to the constant bugs among others, is the lack of roleplaying.
I think that BG3 would better be left unreleased than be without roleplaying. It would be like peanut butter without peanuts. Or butter.
That does give me hope, though, that maybe, just maybe, BG3 could be 2e if WotSC is trying to re-release old AD&D books. Check it out here:
http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Product.aspx?x=dnd/products/dndacc/45390000
And well, I've seen a couple of gameplay videos of Daggerdale and it looks horrible.
WoTC is in the process of re-releasing all of their old stuff, mostly as pdfs, I believe. It is pretty cool for people that still play using those old systems, they can replace beat up books or fill in gaps in their library without scouring ebay, but I don't think it will affect their choice of edition for any licensed products. It seems a near certainty to me that they will want whatever publicity a video game might bring them to be directed at the most current version of the rules, the one they are actively supporting and selling.
The reason for that is not only that they would hope to sell those products as a result of the game, but that they would probably want people to get involved. The more involved people get in things like organized play, the more product WoTC is likely to sell to them, and the better off they (and the hobby) are.
Of course, I can't speak for WoTC, nor can I tell the future. They might decide that using the 2e ruleset has some other advantages that are worth the losses. I just don't see it happening, personally.
By the way, WoTC is doing an open playtest of the new ruleset and soliciting feedback on the different components of it. If you want to experience it for free and have a chance to influence the final product, check it out: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/DnDNext.aspx
I wonder if Overhaul made bg3 using the same engine as iwd or bg2...I kind of always naively imagined that bg3 would look and feel and play basically the same as bg1&2, with spiced up sprites and higher definition graphics, and new characters and a brand new story. Kind of like a giant add-on mod. Foolish of me? Perhaps. Stuck in the past? Perhaps. Wrong? Remains to be seen.
I've said before that I'd rather them create their own rule-set to suit rather than copy-paste something else and hope it works. At least that way you don't introduce any redundant mechanics that do absolutely nothing functionally. *cough*infravision*unconvincing cough*
No, it probably isn't NEEDED. Desperately craved by most players? Probably.
But I digress. Your suggestion, Lemernis, would definitely be more meaningful than turning people red. When I first started playing, I couldn't figure out why everyone kept randomly turning red. I made no connection at first between my elf and the redness. Then I picked up a helmet of infravision and it dawned on me.
Project Eternity (http://eternity.obsidian.net/) is going to be an isometric RPG that uses a ruleset they are building for it (rather than an existing PnP ruleset). Looks pretty cool, I'm excited for it. However, I'm not sure that would work so well for BG3. The Forgotten Realms is pretty closely tied to the D&D brand, so if you want to use the setting you will almost certainly have to use the ruleset. If you don't use the setting, well then your game might be awesome, but it won't be BG3.
And if so, would people be interested in it?
I never played Hackmaster, but I did play the Elric - White Wolf rules set. Don't know if they are anything close, but it was fun back in the day.
I also played for a short time a D&D like campaign that my DM ran using a modified version of the Champions rules set. That was fun if a tiny bit difficult to keep in scope. I think that the Champions rules, if handled correctly would make another really decent CRPG. And I personally would LOVE to play a game based on Paranoia. That would be awesome in my book.