How about a new Baldur's Gate game?...possibly.....

[TiLT]

I think my comment about AD&D was taken in a bit of a different direction than I intended. The D&D ruleset is absolutely right for Baldur's Gate, but I think it would be a good idea to update it (after all, they already did this for Icewind Dale 2, so why not go back and use some of that code in the BG series?) to get rid of the rather huge problems with AD&D. I'd like to be able to do stuff like have a cleric who isn't completely useless, or multiclass and know what the hell I'm doing and why. Trying to understand the details of the ruleset behind the BG games is such a huge and unrewarding undertaking that I just can't be bothered.

[Zurai]

I fully agree with moving on past AD&D rules. AD&D was better than OD&D, but only incrementally.

D&D in general is fine. The concepts and roots fit the mechanics.

[Skeptic]

Well, hitpoints is an abstraction to how resistant you are to the damage when you're hit and since D&D is an *heroic* fantasy game, having a character able to shrug off ridiculous amounts of damage is sort of what they were going for. There are lots of systems that handle combat more realistically if that's what you want; Ilike those every now and then, but when I'm playing an rpg for fun I'd rather be a badass rather than terrified of dying every time I try to do something. That's more due to the fact that my play time is soooo limited now that I don't want to spend most of it rolling up new characters than anythi

I do agree that the D&D ruleset shouldn't be used for a real time CRPG...there are much better uses of the CPU's processing power than handling a ruleset meant for turn based table top play.

I understand what you are saying but my point is that there are FAR better ways to achieve this that do NOT sacrifice 'realism'(for lack of a better term) or logical consistency. The reason Conan or Elric would survive in a RPG should not be because they can take a lance to the face at full speed by a cavalier. It would be because they can avoid the hit(or minimize it) and kill the attacker with a heroic effort. I understand that people try to rationalize that 'Hit Points' in D&D encompasses more than physical damage resistance but this makes no sense as a rationalization because Constitution is the only attribute that affects HP and the more fragile characters still get the least HP on level up. The 'Hit Points rise with experience' thing is just a lazy holdover for lazy designers.

To this end I would even be in favor of giving PCs(and ONLY PCs) 'Fate points' type stats that enable PCs to(using the points judiciously) escape disaster most of the time(as it would reflect what we see from the heroes in fantasy books we read or movies we watch).

I do not think that rulesets for tabletop, turn-based play are inherently difficult to use for CRPGs either. Only BAD rulesets are a problem or good rulesets that are so complex that hours are required to create a single character(because not even I want to spend 2 hours creating a PC in a Baldur's Gate type game before I can get to playing).

[Zurai]

Your Fate points system is exactly what hit points are.

[IceBear]

I understand your point, but I don't really have an issue with hp as it does help simplify things as Monte Cook and a few of the other designers have mentioned. If Conan was "hit" by a lance by a charging knight and took 20hp of damage, I would describe it as Conan barely dodging out of the way of the lance and bruising his shoulder as he rolled out of the way. A normal human would have been skewered. I do agree that other systems handle it more realistically, but I do find that dying in those systems is a little more common than I want in my "heroic" fantasy, and tend to add a level of complexity to combat. I do like the minions that were added in 4E as it allows for a bit more "realism" in that you can kill many things with one hit except for the PCs and more important monsters and NPCs. That was the intent anyway, but you end up using non minions a lot more just to give a challenge.

My comments about the ruleset not really working is because it was meant for a turn based system and some of the things in the ruleset just doesn't work in real time (which is what the BG games are). The main reason the ruleset is turn based is because it simplifies things for tabletop play; when you have a PC, you don't need to simplify things.

[Smoove_B]

I cannot possibly imagine that the update will monkey with the ruleset in any way as I would think that would require going back through the entire game and balancing the fundamentals. From the site:

Overhaul Games has assembled a talented team of artists, programmers and designers to enhance this timeless classic. To remain true to the spirit of the game, the team includes original Baldur’s Gate developers.

Baldur’s Gate: Enhanced Edition™ and Baldur’s Gate II: Enhanced Edition™ will feature a re-forged version of the Infinity Engine with a variety of modern improvements.

[IceBear]

I agree...I don't really expect any ruleset changes.

[Skeptic]

Your Fate points system is exactly what hit points are.

False. But this is getting into a whole complicated issue of analyzing the entire ruleset and going way off topic here.

[Skeptic]

I understand your point, but I don't really have an issue with hp as it does help simplify things as Monte Cook and a few of the other designers have mentioned. If Conan was "hit" by a lance by a charging knight and took 20hp of damage, I would describe it as Conan barely dodging out of the way of the lance and bruising his shoulder as he rolled out of the way. A normal human would have been skewered. I do agree that other systems handle it more realistically, but I do find that dying in those systems is a little more common than I want in my "heroic" fantasy, and tend to add a level of complexity to combat. I do like the minions that were added in 4E as it allows for a bit more "realism" in that you can kill many things with one hit except for the PCs and more important monsters and NPCs. That was the intent anyway, but you end up using non minions a lot more just to give a challenge.

My comments about the ruleset not really working is because it was meant for a turn based system and some of the things in the ruleset just doesn't work in real time (which is what the BG games are). The main reason the ruleset is turn based is because it simplifies things for tabletop play; when you have a PC, you don't need to simplify things.

While I will respectfully disagree(as a matter of personal preference only) with your appreciation of the HP system, I must wholly disagree with your take on CRPGs being "real time" and/or your implication of such. For starters, BG was both 'real time' AND turn-based. I personally know few people who bothered with the turn-based aspect(first thing I did from day one and do before every game I play is to set the 'auto-pause' to duplicate turn-based play, albeit with the crappy real-time pathfinding issues and such). The biggest weakness of BG aside from the AD&D ruleset is the crappy forced conversion to real-time(with pause). Along with this, PC RPGs are not turn-based because of any need for "simplicity"(on the contrary turn based game systems are far more complex than real time systems ever will be). For a lot of us turn-based is simply more realistic because your CHARACTER'S abilities should not be rooted in YOUR physical reflexes and coordination and no one party member's actions should have to wait for another member's actions to be ordered before being ordered themselves(which the 'real-time with pause' system does a fair job of handling, as a compromise).

Sorry but I get a bit miffed at the notion that real-time is somehow superior or more realistic than TB and the only reason any PC games are turn-based is because of some need for 'simplicity' or some such.

[IceBear]

Obviously a misunderstanding. I prefer turned based to real time. Just pointing out that BG was never really turned based. Yes, you could make it close to turn based by turning on the pausing, but under the covers the attack rolls and stuff was real time which did weird things with multiple attacks per round and stuff. That said, my memory was remembering more of NWN which used the 3E rules and there were more elements that needed the distinction of turns to work well.

My comments about rulesets apply to all of them. Tabletop rulesets tend to simplify things so things don't bog down at the table (some more than others). I would prefer someone to take advantage of the CPU processing ability to make a rpg that used a more realistic model than just a generic -2 to hit because of a disadvantage. That's all I mean about preferring a RPG that wasn't "reduced" by using tabletop rules. Again...I, like you, prefer turned based games

[Skeptic]

Ah...ok, I see what you are saying now. My apologies for reading stuff into what you were saying.

[IceBear]

No problem I could have been clearer. Btw my interpretation of hp is one provided by several of the D&D designers and Dragon magazine articles over the years. You were hit and now have to spend a resource(like a Fate Point) to avoid death / serious injury

[Zurai]

Your Fate points system is exactly what hit points are.

False.

Not at all. Even Gygax himself wrote that hit points represented luck and the ability to roll with punches rather than the ability to straight up absorb damage.

The fact that you refuse to accept this doesn't mean it's false.

[Grundbegriff]

Your Fate points system is exactly what hit points are.

False.

Not at all. Even Gygax himself wrote that hit points represented luck and the ability to roll with punches rather than the ability to straight up absorb damage.

The fact that you refuse to accept this doesn't mean it's false.

Zurai is right. Hit points were never about being able to absorb ridiculous amounts of damage. They were a simple abstraction over a host of undefined circumstantial as well as physical minutiae that the game didn't aspire to model in fine.

[Blackhawk]

Orcs get sliced apart. Heroes get flesh wounds. Bandits get disemboweled. Heroes get a dramatic blood stain on their shirt. Think of hit points as health points + heroic luck points. The stronger you are, the more you have of each. Eventually, though, you run out of both.

[Skeptic]

No problem I could have been clearer. Btw my interpretation of hp is one provided by several of the D&D designers and Dragon magazine articles over the years. You were hit and now have to spend a resource(like a Fate Point) to avoid death / serious injury

I know that but the rationalization did not work and was contradicted by everything else about the system. If HP were actually some bizarre combination of 'luck, fortune, favor of the gods, physique and skill/veteran wile' then why doesn't Wisdom affect HP? Why not Dex? What about Charisma? Why only Constitution?
What are saving throws for and how do they fit into this? Why don't pious acts boost HP? Why do you recover all HP from resting and physical heals(medicine and/or cleric spells) if some large portion of these HPs are just "luck/fortune/favor of the gods"?

[Skeptic]

Your Fate points system is exactly what hit points are.

False.

Not at all. Even Gygax himself wrote that hit points represented luck and the ability to roll with punches rather than the ability to straight up absorb damage.

The fact that you refuse to accept this doesn't mean it's false.

You are not paying attention. See my post above this one for further clarification.

I did not "refuse to accept" any such thing. You are reading way too much into my contentions.

[Blackhawk]

Constitution isn't the only thing that affects HP. Level - a measure of heroic prowess - affects it, too. It isn't just health, it is a combination of toughness, experience, heroic-ness, and fate/luck. The constitution bonus is a favors the toughness aspect of it. The level is responsible for the rest, and unless you have a phenomenal level of health (CON), the vast majority of it.

[Skeptic]

Constitution isn't the only thing that affects HP. Level - a measure of heroic prowess - affects it, too. It isn't just health, it is a combination of toughness, experience, heroic-ness, and fate/luck. The constitution bonus is a favors the toughness aspect of it. The level is responsible for the rest, and unless you have a phenomenal level of health (CON), the vast majority of it.

Then why does Con. affect the HP you get on level up? And why don't other attributes affect HP?

[Zurai]

Con affects it because they wanted one attribute to, and there isn't a Luck attribute, and Con doesn't affect almost anything else (Fort saves in 3rd edition, and some abilities in 4th edition, but basically nothing else). They didn't use Strength, Dexterity, Charisma, Intelligence, or Wisdom because none of those are at all relevant. Con is at least relevant to one facet.

Let's look at what you listed:

"luck, fortune,": No Luck stat, and none of the stats are at all affiliated with Luck. Luck and fortune in this case is represented by the die roll when rolling for hit points at level up.

"favor of the gods": Again, no stat is relevant to this, and again this can be considered part of the die roll.

"physique": Constitution.

"and skill/veteran wile": Again, no stat. Skill and veteran wile are best represented by levels, which do grant more hit points.

[Blackhawk]

Constitution isn't the only thing that affects HP. Level - a measure of heroic prowess - affects it, too. It isn't just health, it is a combination of toughness, experience, heroic-ness, and fate/luck. The constitution bonus is a favors the toughness aspect of it. The level is responsible for the rest, and unless you have a phenomenal level of health (CON), the vast majority of it.

Then why does Con. affect the HP you get on level up? And why don't other attributes affect HP?

I bolded that answer, bad editing and all.

[TiLT]

Sigh... I should have known that talking about my dislike of AD&D would turn into a system war, even if that war went in a different direction than I would have expected. Maybe the discussion about the merits of hit points should be done in a different thread? Right now the signal to noise ratio in this thread is alarmingly low.

[Jaymon]

Are they having any kind of beta? Anybody seen news beyond the advertisement from the publisher?
They would need to do either a really amazing job, or release at a superb price point to justify not just firing up the game as is, or getting the super cheap download of the old version.

I was somewhat excited at first, but now I am thinking, whats the catch? There has to be a catch right?

[IceBear]

They did mention there was going to be some new content. Haven't heard anything about pricing or a beta, unfortunately.

[Carpet_pissr]

I am rarely (literally, maybe once or twice in my life) a "day one purchase!" kinda gamer, primarily because I have enough of a backlog that I am never in a state of breathless anticipation of yet another to clog the 'log, as it were (ok that sounds nasty).

However, I am one of those annoying Golden Age gamers constantly looking back at how great games were in the days before the publishers were even heard about on Wall St. I have probably complained more than once about how I wish someone would JUST refresh X-Com, instead of replace it...(although I am psyched about the latest try, and can't wait to try it out)

So it sounds like someone is doing just that for one of my favorite games of all times. I personally couldn't be happier.

I would ALSO be happy about a follow up game, with the same overall look and feel, but with completely new content (maybe they are considering this if this title sells well?)

[Blackhawk]

Right now the signal to noise ratio in this thread is alarmingly low.

Probably because there is no signal - just a brief burst transmission. All we can talk about is the noise.

[Smoove_B]

Totally missed this from a GameSpy article on Friday:

"Baldur's Gate 3 has been our long term goal. We have a lot of things to put in place before such a project can be launched. So currently there is no such project but that's the one we want to do. Our thoughts have been that Enhanced Edition for BG 1 and 2 just make sense before there's any Baldur's Gate 3."

"We're totally thinking Kickstarter. It just makes so much sense and solves so many problems. I think what Brian [Fargo] is doing with Wasteland is very interesting."

[Blackhawk]

Well, if they do what they're talking about and rewrite the Infinity engine to modern specs, but in such a way that BG1/2 maintain their core gameplay within it, then they'll certainly have the tools in place for a BG3.

[Daehawk]

The thing with all this Kickstarter stuff is not only do the fans have to fund the game they then have to buy it anyways.

[Zurai]

Not really. Pretty much every Kickstarter project includes the actual product as its first (or at least a very low) tier reward.

[silverjon]

And it's even easier to do it as a low-tier reward when your product is one that can be digitally distributed, though I certainly see it with books and artwork. But games and music? No question about it.

[Fitzy]

And it's even easier to do it as a low-tier reward when your product is one that can be digitally distributed, though I certainly see it with books and artwork. But games and music? No question about it.

For how long? How many games can be put up on Kickstarter before the fans start getting burned out. How long until one of the highly funded projects fails?

Didn't someone try something similar here prior to Kickstarter? Derek something or other?

It's an interesting idea, but as a long term funding source? I think people will begin to wonder if the value they are getting back is really worth the price they are paying. Especially when project begin to fail. Or I am cynical and this will all turn out wonderful

[Carpet_pissr]

And it's even easier to do it as a low-tier reward when your product is one that can be digitally distributed, though I certainly see it with books and artwork. But games and music? No question about it.

For how long? How many games can be put up on Kickstarter before the fans start getting burned out. How long until one of the highly funded projects fails?

Didn't someone try something similar here prior to Kickstarter? Derek something or other?

It's an interesting idea, but as a long term funding source? I think people will begin to wonder if the value they are getting back is really worth the price they are paying. Especially when project begin to fail. Or I am cynical and this will all turn out wonderful

Kickstarter project success rate of 43% FWIW.

[Fitzy]

Kickstarter project success rate of 43% FWIW.

Successful funding or successful completion post funding?

[Carpet_pissr]

Kickstarter project success rate of 43% FWIW.

Successful funding or successful completion post funding?

I believe that is the rate for funded projects that successfully met their stated goals (usually resulting in some finished product for the backers) but I will double check that.

[TiLT]

Am I the only one who thinks Baldur's Gate 3 is a bad idea? The story was completely finished with Throne of Bhaal, with absolutely no loose ends. Every main character in the group had the rest of their lives summed up too. If a sequel were to be made, they'd have to go with all new characters and an all new plot. Why would this then be a Baldur's Gate game? Why not just make it something new with the same gameplay? Can't we for once stop ourselves from thinking "oh yeah, that game was great. It needs a sequel"? Not every story needs to (or can) go on forever.

[Blackhawk]

It is too late to consider Baldur's Gate the name of a single series. There have been four games released with the name, only two of which had anything to do with the Bhaalspawn plotline, and Black Isle themselves had a BG3 underway ('Jeffereson') with no relation to the originals.

[Smoove_B]

I would say that whether or not a "Baldur's Gate 3" game is explored is going to be related to just how many copies of the revised editions of the original are sold.

If Michael Bay can turn the Teenage Mutant Ninja TURTLES into aliens for a movie, I have no doubts someone could drudge up enough material to stamp "Baldur's Gate" on it if they thought there would be a profit.

[TiLT]

Neither of you answered my question. I know the commercial nature of this. What I don't understand is the excitement about gamers over an obviously commercial decision to resurrect a finished franchise. I don't consider the console games real Baldur's Gate titles since they weren't numbered anyway, but when you add the 3 to the title, you're implicating that it's a direct sequel.

Parts of the games industry is starting to disgust me recently. I loved Baldur's Gate 2 (despite its use of AD&D), but done is done. Even Hollywood can usually accept this with movies, so why can't the game industry? Are gamers willing to accept just about anything?

Another example I can mention is the Assassin's Creed series. Those games were officially planned for a trilogy with a new historic character for every game. Assassin's Creed 2 even went so far as to explicitly point out during the final cutscene that Ezio was no longer relevant to the story from that point and that his role was over. Then suddenly Ubisoft saw that AC2 was earning money in buckets, so they forced the developers to drag out the story. Suddenly Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood was supposed to "finish Ezio's story" (which was already finished). That earned buckets of money too, so they continued in the same vein the next year while waiting for AC3. Assassin's Creed: Revelations was going to "finish Ezio's story" (I have no idea if it did. I lost interest in the games when I saw what was going on behind the scenes). Am I the only person to see the problem with this kind of stuff?

Please understand that I'm not saying that Baldur's Gate 3 will be a bad game. It could turn out to be excellent. I just strongly disagree with them having to call it Baldur's Gate 3 and having gamers spontaneously orgasm over the decision.

[Carpet_pissr]

Neither of you answered my question. I know the commercial nature of this. What I don't understand is the excitement about gamers over an obviously commercial decision to resurrect a finished franchise. I don't consider the console games real Baldur's Gate titles since they weren't numbered anyway, but when you add the 3 to the title, you're implicating that it's a direct sequel.

Parts of the games industry is starting to disgust me recently. I loved Baldur's Gate 2 (despite its use of AD&D), but done is done. Even Hollywood can usually accept this with movies, so why can't the game industry? Are gamers willing to accept just about anything?

Another example I can mention is the Assassin's Creed series. Those games were officially planned for a trilogy with a new historic character for every game. Assassin's Creed 2 even went so far as to explicitly point out during the final cutscene that Ezio was no longer relevant to the story from that point and that his role was over. Then suddenly Ubisoft saw that AC2 was earning money in buckets, so they forced the developers to drag out the story. Suddenly Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood was supposed to "finish Ezio's story" (which was already finished). That earned buckets of money too, so they continued in the same vein the next year while waiting for AC3. Assassin's Creed: Revelations was going to "finish Ezio's story" (I have no idea if it did. I lost interest in the games when I saw what was going on behind the scenes). Am I the only person to see the problem with this kind of stuff?

Please understand that I'm not saying that Baldur's Gate 3 will be a bad game. It could turn out to be excellent. I just strongly disagree with them having to call it Baldur's Gate 3 and having gamers spontaneously orgasm over the decision.

AFAIK, no one officially has said there will be a Baldur's Gate 3 (please correct if I am wrong), or of the sparse hints that are out there, that it will carry on the same story line if it did happen.

PERSONALLY, re: your question about gamers willing to accept anything, yes, I would happily consume a Baldur's Gate 3 if the devs chose to foist it on me. HAPPILY. Why? Because story line, to me personally, was always secondary at best in terms of the enjoyment I found in the series. Not even considering the marketing implications of stamping something with the Baldur's Gate name on it, as a consumer, if I see "Baldur's Gate: Kiss My Grits" I would buy it because of the name and the association of high quality game play I have with the previous titles. (again, if done by basically the same people - in situations where companies sell the rights to the name of a series, and a completely different team of devs takes it over, all bets are off of course).

Assuming, again, since all this is hearsay, that they did decide to do Baldur's Gate 3, as a gamer that loved the first 2, my choices are: 1. buy, and send a message that I like these types of games, or 2. not buy, and send a message that I don't like these kinds of games. Any other nuanced "message" a consumer tries to send in these cases (with money, or lack thereof) usually gets lost or not delivered at all.