58 réponses à ce sujet

[Ahisgewaya]

Is Bioware ever going to make another Dungeons and Dragons based game? Or is Dragon Age the only typical fantasy world that they are going to work with from now on?

Don't get me wrong, I love me some Dragon Age, but I also like the possibility of more D&D games in the works.

[corebit]

Unlikely I think, Bioware now believes that creating their own setting (DA) is far more profitable than paying a license for existing IP and they're correct! Why bound yourself with the works and restrictions of another company?

[Grog415]

I played all the old D & D games. In my humble opinion, Dragon Age Origins is just a continuation. No Eye of The Beholders, but they went on to Doom fame anyways.

[Ahisgewaya]

You're probably both right. I just find it sad.....Baldur's Gate got me into D&D in the first place, and now they have the fourth edition thing and it's just not the same anymore.....

[Arbiter Libera]

It makes me wonder why then would you even want to see another D&D game, even if it was made by BioWare, given that it would 99.9% definitely be based on the 4th Edition. I swear to god, if that thing didn't have "Dungeons & Dragons" logo on the books I wouldn't even recognize it was D&D. If anything, 4th Ed. is basically made to be translated into an MMORPG, given it's simplification, inclusion of "kewl" races as major races (Tieflings? Really?) and other things.

Modifié par Arbiter Libera, 05 mars 2010 - 03:04 .

[corebit]

Arbiter Libera wrote...

It makes me wonder why then would you even want to see another D&D game, even if it was made by BioWare, given that it would 99.9% definitely be based on the 4th Edition. I swear to god, if that thing didn't have "Dungeons & Dragons" logo on the books I wouldn't even recognize it was D&D. If anything, 4th Ed. is basically made to be translated into an MMORPG, given it's simplification, inclusion of "kewl" races as major races (Tieflings? Really?) and other things.

This. The entire setting has been tailored like a videogame. The classes have been so homogenized that no single class feels unique anymore. It also borrows so many things from MMOs (retraining a.k.a respeccing) it's almost embarrasing to keep calling it a tabletop game.

[bzombo]

Ahisgewaya wrote...

Is Bioware ever going to make another Dungeons and Dragons based game? Or is Dragon Age the only typical fantasy world that they are going to work with from now on?

Don't get me wrong, I love me some Dragon Age, but I also like the possibility of more D&D games in the works.

probably not, but right now atari has the license, so nothing for now. i find it unlikely unless ea somehow gets its hands on the license.

[Jonp382]

I would prefer if they don't make anymore D&D games myself. There's more freedom in having your own creations.(From BioWare's perspective)

[Baracuda6977]

what makes it a D&D game anyways? the license, world or play style?

[AshedMan]

The ruleset.

[Loerwyn]

Baracuda6977 wrote...

what makes it a D&D game anyways? the license, world or play style?

Licence or Ruleset.
You can't make an official D&D game without the license BUT you can make an official D&D game without the ruleset (see D&D - Forgotten Realms; Demon Stone and I think Dragonshard too, to a point).
But really, I wouldn't expect to see BioWare granted the D&D license again. Their previous games were/are published by Atari in the EU, whereas BioWare is now an EA company and BioWare would also be in competition with itself, which is a bit of a silly place to be.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the next D&D game done by someone like Obsidian, truth be told. They've got the experience.

[Jae Onasi]

They have the license with NWN2, they could always expand upon that by doing a NWN3 with the 4th ed.

Regarding the editions--some of it's streamlining from edition to edition (e.g. getting rid of THAC0, or simplifying the skills when going from 3.5 to 4). However, I suspect most of it is designed to sell more books. I have so many resources for 3.5 ed that I doubt I'll move on to 4. The things that I like about 4 I can always incorporate into my current campaigns.

[Loerwyn]

I read an interview, Jae (it's on the Escapist now), and they do it partially when sales slump but also when they feel like it needs doing due to changes in, well, everything. I've not looked at 4ed but I've heard it's a lot simpler WHICH I think should help me understand the game more. I've got 2 3.5 books and D&D for Dummies, and I'm just baffled by it all.

[Ahisgewaya]

THat's actually why some people are upset about it, it's kind of TOO simple. When it gets too simple it takes out a lot of options players once had.

Modifié par Ahisgewaya, 06 mars 2010 - 03:45 .

[Arbiter Libera]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...

I read an interview, Jae (it's on the Escapist now), and they do it partially when sales slump but also when they feel like it needs doing due to changes in, well, everything. I've not looked at 4ed but I've heard it's a lot simpler WHICH I think should help me understand the game more. I've got 2 3.5 books and D&D for Dummies, and I'm just baffled by it all.

It should, although the problem with the 4th Ed. is exactly that - it's streamlined to an extreme (very similar to what WoW did for MMOs, if you've played it) and it's almost not recognizable. They took out all the "flavor" skills and even RP actions (like, you know, NEGOTIATING with NPCs for example) can now be boiled down to rolling a few dices, while in the previous editions you, as PC, would roleplay the situation with your DM. Need I even explain which of the two is more immersive? 4th Edition simply caters more to the "I want it and I want it NOW" generation of new PnP enthusiasts, generally coming from video game crowd.

3.5 wasn't really complicated or anything (although technically it was somewhat wonky, but that's why we have Pathfinder), it's just that it had decades of legacy behind it and it had accumulated loads of sheer amount of content over the years so the new players were more in a state of confusion because they had no idea where to start from, which books should they own, etc.

Modifié par Arbiter Libera, 06 mars 2010 - 04:00 .

[Seagloom]

4e isn't simpler in my opinion. Merely streamlined. A lot people claim it's a WoW clone, or that it would translate better to CRPG form than past editions, but I disagree. There are so many minor things to keep track of in a 4e battle it's ludicrous. Most of the new feats and many powers apply minor bonuses or penalties all over the place, forcing you to keep track of several things constantly. Combat does play out much slower and feel more engaging than 3e and DM preparation time is less, but the game is much more dependent on battle mats than it used to be. Everything is measured in squares now, making it difficult to play with just dice and a few sheets of paper, and lending the game a well, gamey feeling. In other words it's harder to immerse yourself into the role-playing and feels like playing a game constantly. It wouldn't translate very well into a realtime RPG either. 4e is still decidedly turn based friendly.

The only area where I feel 4e is simpler and more forgiving to new players is that every class now follows the same basic design rather than spellcasters having a plethora of magical options to pore through. That and attack progression as well as multiclassing, if it can be called that, is ridiculously straightforward compared to 3e's multiclassing insanity that allowed for some real funky combinations. It's easier to learn than 3e, but not by much in my opinion.

All that aside, I'm ambivalent about BioWare working on another D&D game. On one hand, having a defined ruleset makes gameplay design easier in ways since much of it is already there. I think combat is one of the weakest aspects of BioWare games from KotOR up. On the other hand, I rather see them stick to their own intellectual properties. Thedas is an interesting enough setting on its own that I don't see a need for them to lean on D&D anymore. Plus I'm not interested in a 4e game, not being a fan of the system. I rather see a developer do a Pathfinder CRPG, but I highly doubt it will happen any time soon. Not until Paizo creates their own ruleset from scratch... which is guaranteed to occur when the current rules run their course. Of course, I may not want a game based on those new rules when that time rolls around.

As for Wizards of the Coast and D&D in general... well... the game is pretty much a money making excuse for them now. They've long abandoned any pretense of caring deeply about world design or how much role-playing sense their rules make. Granted, D&D was never a great system for role-playing, but 4e has swung it far into the opposite direction. That, and they've fired most of the worthwhile old school designers on their payroll. Combine their actions and attitude with the butchering of Forgotten Realms and I have no reason to play newer versions of D&D. Oh, and like Jae my 3e collection is pretty massive. My 2e collection is too, for that matter.

There will be a 5e before long. One of WotC's designers said it's a definite after 4e's been around a few years. All they do now is release books to expand mechanics with the yearly campaign setting. It's more game than role-playing at this point.

/Wall of text

Modifié par Seagloom, 06 mars 2010 - 06:05 .

[MerinTB]

I often feel like the odd man out.

I loved D&D, AD&D, AD&D 2nd Edition...
and hated 3E and 3.5 ...

I couldn't play D&D (hell, I couldn't even enjoy D&D CRPGs based on that system, with the sole exception of Icewind Dale 2) in 3E without wanting to tear my hair out.

Personal preference, I guess.

I love 4E.  Like Scott Kurtz said, for me it brought the fun back and did away with the munchkin, library-owning min-maxers.

I'm not going to bore people who hate on 4E here (who should all chat with the people who hated 3E when it came out, who should chat with the people who hated 2E when it came out...)

BUT

if anyone want to know my opinions on the subject, I did start a multi-part series of essays on the topic of 4E and I plan on continuing them soon.
http://ingenre.com/2...4th-edition-dd/
http://ingenre.com/2...tion-dd-part-2/
if interested, feel free to give those a read and let me know your thoughts.

[Seagloom]

Hey, for the record... I don't mind that people prefer 4e over 3e. I even submit that it can be more fun in ways. It just isn't my preference for a P&P system. I do think 3e did several things wrong, and that Pathfinder doesn't even come close to fixing its core problems, but I feel 4e's approach changed the fundamental game too much for me to feel it's still D&D. I just wanted to get that out there, because I dislike being lumped in with the rabid anti-4e crowd. Not that you were necessarily doing that in your post, MerinTB, but I may as well throw in that disclaimer before anyone says I blindly despise 4e and never gave it a chance.

Modifié par Seagloom, 06 mars 2010 - 04:20 .

[MerinTB]

Seagloom wrote...

Hey, for the record... I don't mind that people prefer 4e over 3e. I even submit that it can be more fun in ways. It just isn't my preference for a P&P system. I do think 3e did several things wrong, and that Pathfinder doesn't even come close to fixing its core problems, but I feel 4e's approach changed the fundamental game too much for me to feel it's still D&D. I just wanted to get that out there, because I dislike being lumped in with the rabid anti-4e crowd. Not that you were necessarily doing that in your post, MerinTB, but I may as well throw in that disclaimer before anyone says I blindly despise 4e and never gave it a chance.

It was probably unfair to post after you, Seagloom, because I found your reasoning to be the most rational I've seen.

I disagree slightly that it's hard at any level for new players to come in.  In 3E I saw new players come in and others made their characters and told them what to do, so I can't gauge how "easy" it is when all the new players I saw had coaches.

For 4E, however, if you learn the 3 basic rules the game gives your at the start, you can flip through the races and classes and just use one of the two recommended builds for the class you choose and go to town.
If you have the Character Creator program (one of the BEST pieces of software ever designed for RPGs, IMO) making a character can take seconds (if you use the recommended builds) and dive right into the game with "you use the green powers once per round, the red once per encounter, and the black once per day."

Wasn't picking on you, Seagloom.  And I know you say you didn't think I was, but just wanted to be clear.

I do want to quote this from my one essay for everyone, though-

from In Genre article...
Any role-playing game can be fun if all you are focusing on is acting in
character – you don’t even need game mechanics for that. You don’t
really need many rules at all for improv theater. And you can add that
level of RP to any RPG. What game books, the rules mechanics, need to
do is create a framework for challenges that aren’t based on how well
players can articulate or assume personas. How do you measure which
character can do what better, and how do the characters overcome the
challenges placed before them? How do characters grow, how do the
obstacles become more difficult? Rules can be a hinderance, they can
often be the biggest roadblock to fun if they are obtuse, complex, or
simply voluminous (I’m looking at the sheer number of books WotC likes
to put out here.) But when well designed and simplified (...) rules are aides in making a game
fun!

[Sloth Of Doom]

Poor Merin, I'd respect you more if you stopped referencing Kurtz, the biggest dbag to ever bag a d.



That being said, you are one of the few 4e adherents that I know of that can rationally explain WHY they like it, as opposed to the fanbois that seem to have their mouths so firmly attached to WOTC's nether regions that they can't speak coherently.



I agree with what others here have said. Previous editions built upon the editions before them, you can easily see where the game evolved and changed, and despite the rules being quite different from the Basic set to 3.5 it still feels like the same game. 4th decided to scrap everything and write a new game that apparently takes most of its ideas from MMOs. Aside from havng D&D stamped all over it, it has nothing in common with previous editions and just desn;t feel lke D&D anymore. Now it s just some generic fantasy RPG, and lets be honest, there are a ton of those around. If I want to play a P&P fantasy game, why settle for a poor substitute?

[Ahisgewaya]

The main thing I dislike about it is the complete reversal of a lot of long time lore. (real tongue twister there) Such as the fact that Succubi are now devils for some reason, and half the elves are now eladrin but they still die, etc.



Another thing is I really liked being able to play as a monster, which was allowed in the 3rd edition rules. Now you can't. Not only that, but druids who wild shape can't fly anymore.



But most of all I don't like that they retconned so much of the fluff they had in the 3rd edition books, but now just about every book they make is chock full of mechanics but no fluff.

[Loerwyn]

Well, if you think about it in a weird way, if a lot of the "hardcore" players and groups stick with 3/3.5 and people learn on 4ed, then we could have a D&D/AD&D situation?

They progress (or regress, depending how you look at it) to the better game once they learnt the basics?

[Arbiter Libera]

OnlyShallow89 wrote...
They progress (or regress, depending how you look at it) to the better game once they learnt the basics?

Interesting view and one can only hope it will actually happen, but I find it unlikely given that 4th Ed. teaches newcomers to hobby that "roll playing" is where it's all at, instead of "role playing" (not to mention that video game players already come with that mentality, at least good deal does).

Sure, I'll give praise to 4th Ed. where it's due (it's combat, where all this new streamlining is a much welcome addition because it makes combat faster and more fluid, even if cuts out some technical finesse which was there in the previous editions and if it places somewhat grater emphasis on minis, at least if you ask me), but I'm not one of "those" player who play D&D solely as a hack and slash game focused on getting new phat loot, hence, I need more than just an improved combat system... unfortunately, 4th Ed. simply fails at everything else when compared to previous editions. In my opinion, of course, I'm not dictating anyone what to like or play.

Modifié par Arbiter Libera, 06 mars 2010 - 06:04 .

[Loerwyn]

I suspect it'd happen in a few games.

I think one problem WotC made for themselves was not pushing the D&D board game enough. I have it somewhere and it's much simpler than the P&P but it does advertise it and mention it can be used for "bigger adventures" etc.

I've never, personally, found D&D something you can just jump into. I've really only experienced it through CRPGs and it's very hard to get to grips with - I still have a lot of issues working out if something is truly better than something else; something that might not happen if I was eased in and I wonder how true that is for other people.

[Arbiter Libera]

Of course you can't, you can't really jump into any PnP game if it has some sort of attributes focus. Of course, there are a few games out there that are relatively easier to "jump into" judged on the crunchy side at least (like Nobilis for example). It's just a nature of the majority of this hobby, although indie games have always experimented with rules. CRPGs are a good introduction, but it's just not the same because you're not really gradually introduced into the system. I remember when I saw my friend playing BG2 and he was like: "... alright, WTF am I looking at here? Spreadsheets on LSD?" so, yeah.

But then again, he's glad I didn't try to get him into RIFTS... THAT would've blown his mind away.

Modifié par Arbiter Libera, 06 mars 2010 - 07:56 .