Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 remake

[Menegrothx]

I'll just repost the part you cut out:

If you made BG3 with D&D4 rules I guarantee a ton of old fans would start spewing bile.

They have to make a choice between pleasing the new fans or pleasing the old fans. They can't get both groups.

What new fans? Some of the people who played BG1&2 back in the day will boycot the game if it doesn't use the same ruleset. However those who buy the newest RPGs but who have no previous experience of the Baldur's Gate series do not have a predetermined opinnion of what rule set the game should use, they'll buy it regardless. So the only group of people who are affected by the change in rule set is a part of the oldschool faithfuls.
I dont see why using the old rules would "alienate a ton of new people." If they've never played the original games, then they dont have an opinnion in the matter. If they are RPG gamers, they'll buy it anyways to check out if the new game is better than Skyrim. How can they know that some new rule set is more attractive to them than the old one if they don't have any experience from either of them? Why would they intentionally buy a game labeled Baldur's Gate 3 expecting it to be nothing like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2?

[MrPopo]

I dont see why using the old rules would "alienate a ton of new people." If they've never played the original games, then they dont have an opinnion in the matter. If they are RPG gamers, they'll buy it anyways to check out if the new game is better than Skyrim. How can they know that some new rule set is more attractive to them than the old one if they don't have any experience from either of them?

Because the AD&D rules are incredibly clunky. Anyone who has played any RPG in the last decade will say "WTF" when you explain things like AC decreasing and THAC0. Now, you're right that there are a section of the fanbase who will pick it up in spite of using massively outdated rules, but there's another section who will say "fuck that noise".

Why would they intentionally buy a game labeled Baldur's Gate 3 expecting it to be nothing like Baldur's Gate 1 and 2?

This is going back to the nature of those who play RPGs. Some people really enjoy the rules sets of RPGs and being able to manipulate them to create awesome characters and utilize as many tactics as possible. Others are really focused on the story. The people who focus on the story are less affected by a change of rules. Look at the transition between ME1 and ME2. The core of the game stayed the same (space opera, 3rd person shooting) but the combat ruleset and the character sheets changed pretty dramatically. Similarly, you could make a BG3 that was using D&D4 rules and leave it as an isometric overhead party-based game. Those who played BG1&2 for the story won't be bothered by this change, but those who dual class their level 3 Kensai into a Mage and tear through everything will.

[Menegrothx]

Because the AD&D rules are incredibly clunky. Anyone who has played any RPG in the last decade will say "WTF" when you explain things like AC decreasing and THAC0.

How so? I dont play tabletop DnD so I dont know the difference between ADD and D&D 4th edition rules, how is D&D4 less clunky?
Despite that, I think that THAC0 makes sense. Yes, it takes whole 5 minutes to get used to the fact that - is good.

This is going back to the nature of those who play RPGs. Some people really enjoy the rules sets of RPGs and being able to manipulate them to create awesome characters and utilize as many tactics as possible. Others are really focused on the story. The people who focus on the story are less affected by a change of rules. Look at the transition between ME1 and ME2. The core of the game stayed the same (space opera, 3rd person shooting) but the combat ruleset and the character sheets changed pretty dramatically. Similarly, you could make a BG3 that was using D&D4 rules and leave it as an isometric overhead party-based game. Those who played BG1&2 for the story won't be bothered by this change, but those who dual class their level 3 Kensai into a Mage and tear through everything will.

You can have a battle system with depth and a great storyline at the same time. I know that combat isn't the focus or strength of PS:T and I admit that many of the (early level) battles are kind of boring, but I was amazed by how I could use many different tactics succesfully in several situations later on in the game. I could stealth/backstab kite NPCs in to a trap with Annah (the rogue), taunt kite enemies with Morte (fighter) while nuking the target with ranged attacks, buff up and shield my fighters and go for a risky AOE nuke tactic using spells that damaged my party members also and so on.
I doubt that the people who only care about the storyline will think less of the game just because it also has a good combat system.

[MrPopo]

Because the AD&D rules are incredibly clunky. Anyone who has played any RPG in the last decade will say "WTF" when you explain things like AC decreasing and THAC0.

How so? I dont play tabletop DnD so I dont know the difference between ADD and D&D 4th edition rules, how is D&D4 less clunky?
Despite that, I think that THAC0 makes sense. Yes, it takes whole 5 minutes to get used to the fact that - is good.

THAC0 works but is not intuitive. The whole system makes mathematical sense but you have to think in a different way. Every RPG after AD&D has gone with the "increasing the defense number makes your life better" and "increasing the hit number makes your life better". With THAC0 you want the lowest THAC0 possible and the lowest AC possible. It's very counter-intuitive, even though the math checks out.

This is going back to the nature of those who play RPGs. Some people really enjoy the rules sets of RPGs and being able to manipulate them to create awesome characters and utilize as many tactics as possible. Others are really focused on the story. The people who focus on the story are less affected by a change of rules. Look at the transition between ME1 and ME2. The core of the game stayed the same (space opera, 3rd person shooting) but the combat ruleset and the character sheets changed pretty dramatically. Similarly, you could make a BG3 that was using D&D4 rules and leave it as an isometric overhead party-based game. Those who played BG1&2 for the story won't be bothered by this change, but those who dual class their level 3 Kensai into a Mage and tear through everything will.

You can have a battle system with depth and a great storyline at the same time. I know that combat isn't the focus or strength of PS:T and I admit that many of the (early level) battles are kind of boring, but I was amazed by how I could use many different tactics succesfully in several situations later on in the game. I could stealth/backstab kite NPCs in to a trap with Annah (the rogue), taunt kite enemies with Morte (fighter) while nuking the target with ranged attacks, buff up and shield my fighters and go for a risky AOE nuke tactic using spells that damaged my party members also and so on.
I doubt that the people who only care about the storyline will think less of the game just because it also has a good combat system.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The AD&D combat system does not in itself make for tactical play. The situation you described in PS:T could also be pulled off in DA:O, which is a completely different ruleset. But there is a second type of interaction that is highly dependent upon the ruleset, like the aforementioned Kensai/Mage dual, which takes the base proficiencies of a Kensai and adds on a ton of self buffing from the Mage to make a close combat god. That sort of interaction involves the crazy min maxing that is inherent in every ruleset, but to different extents. Some people REALLY enjoy that, and those people who get used to the quirks of ruleset A will be annoyed/upset if you switch to ruleset B. To this day there are many people who still stick with AD&D rules because they don't like the changes in D&D3/4. Those who are playing just for the story won't care too much about ruleset changes as long as the general feel is the same. But there's another large contingent who do care greatly about the nitty gritty. There are a lot of people who hate ME2 because of the change in the rules.

[Menegrothx]

THAC0 works but is not intuitive. The whole system makes mathematical sense but you have to think in a different way. Every RPG after AD&D has gone with the "increasing the defense number makes your life better" and "increasing the hit number makes your life better". With THAC0 you want the lowest THAC0 possible and the lowest AC possible. It's very counter-intuitive, even though the math checks out.

Yes. And how long does it take for players to learn this system? 5 minutes.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The AD&D combat system does not in itself make for tactical play. The situation you described in PS:T could also be pulled off in DA:O, which is a completely different ruleset.

I know. I just mentioned it as an example of game that focuses purely on storyline, dialogue and excellent writing, yet still has a combat system where you can improvise like that (something that many other RPGs don't have).

To this day there are many people who still stick with AD&D rules because they don't like the changes in D&D3/4. Those who are playing just for the story won't care too much about ruleset changes as long as the general feel is the same. But there's another large contingent who do care greatly about the nitty gritty.

Not counting the THAC0 example, I dont think you've still quite explained why new players wouldn't buy BG3 if it used the same ruleset as 1&2. If the people who play the game for the story dont care about ruleset changes as long as the general feel remains the same, why wouldn't they buy the game if the game keeps the original rules?

[MrPopo]

Because it'd be a step backwards from every single development in RPG rulesets since the mid 90s. There's a difference between "I don't care about minutae" and "this is fundamentally weird".

[Jmustang1968]

It is definitely a dilemma. You will have the diehards wanting the same old rules, especially those that resist the newest D&D changes.

Then you will have the newer crowd, the DA/ME/Skyrim rpg gamers who will write it off as old and clunky if they go with the old rules.


You would also hear a lot of critical grief from the media if the game feels too dated. Now, that doesn't have any indication on how good the game is of course, but it will have an effect on sales and reception.

[MrPopo]

I'm glad at least someone understands what I'm saying.

[Menegrothx]

Because it'd be a step backwards from every single development in RPG rulesets since the mid 90s. There's a difference between "I don't care about minutae" and "this is fundamentally weird".

Can you give any concrete examples of this? Some other than THAC0. I dont have any fundamental problem with D&D4, like I said, I don't play DnD myself. I just want to know what makes it so different from ADD that it supposedly makes a world of difference to new players, with out altering the gameplay style of BG1&2.

Then you will have the newer crowd, the DA/ME/Skyrim rpg gamers who will write it off as old and clunky if they go with the old rules.

The thing is that Mass Effect/Skryim type of RPGs dont use D&D ruleset of any kind. So they're not any more familiar with D&D4 than they are with ADD.

[MrPopo]

I think the single biggest thing that would turn off people is the spell memorization system. I don't know how it compares to D&D3 and beyond (my NWN char is a fighter/weapons master), but every other RPG gives you full access to your spells, though they're gated by a resource system. It might be a charges/level system like you see in Wizardry and Final Fantasy 1 & 3 which is close to the AD&D system but much more flexible.