IWD2's use of 3E was a mistake

[Stephen Amber]

did nothing to contribute to the hold-up or eventual cancellation of Van Buren (F3) or the Black Hound (BG3).

 

That one's hard to believe, and you'd sort of have to be part of the company to know if it's true...

 

I admit I don't really understand Stephen Amber's core complaint.

 

This ridiculous thread has nothing to do with the core complaint... wasn't even made by me...

[Tigranes]

That one's hard to believe, and you'd sort of have to be part of the company to know if it's true...

 

It is my understanding that IWD2 was conceived from the beginning as a short-term, relatively guaranteed-sale project in order to keep the cash flowing, as TBH or F3 were not projects that could be completed in a 12-month cycle. I'm sure I might be remembering things wrong, though - if so, somebody catch me on it.

 

This ridiculous thread has nothing to do with the core complaint... wasn't even made by me...

 

You seem to be propelling your side of the argument almost by yourself, though. I did mean to touch on the connections with the earlier 4E debate, and assert that as Sawyer & co. didn't exactly jump into 3E without thinking 'just because it is new', I think it fair to say that they will similarly judge 4E on its own merits (though it's not like they can continue making 3.5E when 4E is out, anyway). I think there's no evidence in the IWD2 era to say that Sawyer is in any way a WOTC apologist or fails to see its mistakes.

[Stephen Amber]

It is my understanding that IWD2 was conceived from the beginning as a short-term, relatively guaranteed-sale project in order to keep the cash flowing, as TBH or F3 were not projects that could be completed in a 12-month cycle. I'm sure I might be remembering things wrong, though - if so, somebody catch me on it.

 

After the glut of IE games and people playing the BG/BG2/IWD+ expansions for 100s of hours the few previous years, it's hard to imagine it being a huge seller. Market overload... Like gorging oneself on watermelon, rolling down a hill, and eating another at the bottom. Maybe it sold huge... I dunno... And I actually did buy, play, and enjoy IWD2, despite the incomplete 3e, but I'm die hard that way. But the games that were lost... especially fallout3... it's enough to make one ball...

 

 

You seem to be propelling your side of the argument almost by yourself, though. I did mean to touch on the connections with the earlier 4E debate, and assert that as Sawyer & co. didn't exactly jump into 3E without thinking 'just because it is new', I think it fair to say that they will similarly judge 4E on its own merits (though it's not like they can continue making 3.5E when 4E is out, anyway). I think there's no evidence in the IWD2 era to say that Sawyer is in any way a WOTC apologist or fails to see its mistakes.

 

At the time probably not, since 3E was such the superior game(except for sargaleth abraxium or whatever his name was), so there was no need to be an apologist. I'm extremely skeptical now however, but could be wrong.

[Kelverin]

since 3E was such the superior game

It was? By whose standards, yours?

 

I thought at the time and still do that it's a terrible system. It's going bye bye and frankly I won't miss it, I might even go back to playing pnp again.

[J.E. Sawyer]

IWD2 was something that Interplay wanted BIS to develop because it would generate revenue faster than FR6/The Black Hound or any other potential project in the division. The Black Hound's engine was still pretty early in development, so the chances of the game being done quickly, much less to a high level of quality, were very low. Fallout 3 was still just an idea. We knew we wanted to use TBH's engine for F3 (and in fact, that planning was invaluable when we actually did), but it was even further away from being realized than TBH. Interplay needed short-term money very, very fast. ASAP. Though I think everyone believed that the returns on TBH and F3 would have been greater than those on IWD2, we also knew that IWD2 was the one thing that we could make relatively rapidly, for a small investment, and a modest return.

 

Icewind Dale 2 did review 3.8% lower than IWD (according to Game Rankings), but that never really surprised me. It was the eighth title to use the Infinity Engine (BG, BG:TotSC, BG2, BG2:ToB, IWD, IWD:HoW, PS:T), and it came out right after Neverwinter Nights.

 

At the time probably not, since 3E was such the superior game(except for sargaleth abraxium or whatever his name was), so there was no need to be an apologist.

I did (and do) think that 3E and 3.5 are better games than 2nd Ed., but I did (and do) criticize the choices WotC made when they built and revised the system. I think AoOs are pretty cumbersome, I think that even the revised ranger still feels strange in how it is composed, I think weighted point buy has a lot of issues, I think prestige classes do the same (not good) things to the game that kits did in 2nd Ed., etc. It's a big game, and it has flaws. Some are systemic (multiclassed spellcasters) and others are content-specific (Frenzied Berserker). But overall, I certainly think that 3E and 3.5 are the "best D&Ds" we've had so far. 4E remains to be evaluated in full, because I've honestly not had a huge amount of exposure to it.

[DemonKing]

I think it's worth remembering that IWD2 was released some three years after the release of the 3rd ed. rules - it would have been a hard sell to send it out as a 2nd ed. game ala BG2 and IWD that had been released in 2000 within a year of the 3rd ed. rule release and before most D&Ders had fully swapped over to the new system.

 

I still would have bought a 2nd ed. version but there's no denying that the 3rd ed. rules did open up some new options particularly with regards to multi-classing.

 

The main problem for me with IWD2 was that the content was a bit up and down in comparison to the original IWD and the focus wasn't as tight. I can think of almost any area in IWD and it brings back some great memories, but with IWD2 I mainly remember the frustrations (Ice Temple, Fellwood and the awful time-travelling Dragon's Eye). Also the backgroud art, music and atmosphere was not quite up to the consistently high standards of the original, IMO.

[Tigranes]

Stephen Amber, I don't think you really understood me, but that's probably my fault - Sawyer explained it better, just now. Interplay was having financial trouble, and if it waited until TBH was released, then it would probably have died and closed shop even faster than it did. IWD2 was a one step backward, two step forward thing. Pity that those two steps weren't enough to let it survive.

 

If anything, I would blame Herve Caen's hemmorrhaging of the company, the FO:BOS project, and the decision to cancel TBH then later develop Van Buren (though I think there was a reason for that, I forget). But those more knowledgeable than me have produced enough theories about the cause of BIS' death to justify a university degree. Point is, I think most people will agree that it wasn't IWD2.

 

Anyway. On the general discussion:

 

As someone who's never reaaally played tabletop D&D (never really had the chance, unfortunately), I actually liked AD&D and whatever used in the IE games... I thought they were translated into the medium quite well; above all was fun, diverse and generally made sense. I felt the same about 3E as I do now with 4E: a generally lateral move that does some good and some bad, but probably we'll all get used to it quite soon.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

There isn't much I can really say about it, the implementation was on par with NWN's, so I feel there really is no need to complain.

 

What I will do is say that, the rule system alone made the game accessable to me missus, whom refuses to play BG 1 & 2, IWD and Planescape : Torment, purely based upon her dislike of 2e rules.

 

It's simple and matter of fact really... 3e rules translate alot better than 2e rules when it comes to implementation in a computer game, that's not to say that one ruleset is better than some other in P&P terms, that's far too a subjective question imho, and a whole other debate.

 

The core mechanic of 3e do seem alot more logical, for example AC, and BAB... THAC0 always seemed rather stupid, and somewhat backwards... It's the whole, lower AC is better, and aiming to hit AC0 that baffles me from a logical perspective... It doesn't make as much sense as higher AC being better, and higher BAB increasing ones chances.

[Kelverin]

It's simple and matter of fact really... 3e rules translate alot better than 2e rules when it comes to implementation in a computer game,

 

Can you present your evidence to this fact? Scientific backing, statistics? Or is it really just your opinion?

 

I find it amusing really, that the "better rule set" will also be around the shortest period of time.

Why is that? Financial? Maybe someone who knows more about the subject care to explain this?

[Spider]

The financial aspect can't be neglected. I've said it before, for a company that is in the publishing business it makes sense to put out new editions of their best selling books every now and then. They probably don't need to make the kind of overhaul WotC tend to do every time (something along the lines of 3e to 3.5 is more common), but the radical changes also have their place. Keeping things fresh.

 

That 2E lasted as long as it did is more a testament to TSR:s lack of business sense than anything else. And in my opinion it was hopelessly outdated when 3E came around. Maybe not the rules themselves, I guess that's up to opinions (although I think the rules were as well, but that's me). But the production values were pretty awful. Layouts were bad, art was nothing spectacular, the overall presentation was kind of lacking. If you have the most popular RPG in the world, it should show. They were simply outclassed by companies like White Wolf in that respect.

 

As for the grand overhaul, I think that decision kind of makes sense as well. It may not be necessary, but I can see where WotC is coming from. First, they clearly want to keep up with the times, so from what I understand they're adopting a lot of MMORPG elements into the rulebook. Given how large that market is, it makes sense to try and convert people to P&P rather than the other way around which has been the norm until now. I'm not sure it'll work, but I can understand why they'd try.

 

Another aspect to consider is that WotC:s most successful game (Magic) is one where they change the game in a fairly radical manor every year. And that is part of why the game is still so popular, it always feel fresh. Granted, RPGs are a different beast, but it's not a stretch for WotC to think that those customers may actually like things to be shaken up every now and then as well. They've probably done extensive research into this. They're not stupid.

 

(note, I personally could care less how many editions they release. I'm not a fan of D&D at all, the number of 3e games I've played can be counted on one hands fingers. I predict that to count the number of 4e games I could probably lose the hand. Not to say it's a bad game, just not my cup of tea. My interest in this is partly because I used to work on the retail end and the distributor end, and because whatever WotC does will affect the hobby as a whole. So I follow the progress with interest and curiosity, but that's all. I guess I'm a bit weird that way)

[Cantousent]

I think Spider hit the nail on the head. He often does.

 

I think it's a testament that 3.5 has done well that WotC is pushing a new edition. Frankly, I'd rather have a radical reinvention of the rules than more extraneous materials. That's true even if I don't like all the changes in each edition.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

It's simple and matter of fact really... 3e rules translate alot better than 2e rules when it comes to implementation in a computer game,

 

Can you present your evidence to this fact? Scientific backing, statistics? Or is it really just your opinion?

 

 

Oh we're playing that game are we, well... How about you start by presenting your evidence, and I'll just chuck every D&D game at you since 3e based games began production, better still... IWD2's rule implmentation when compared with IWD's rule implementation. I don't think it really comes any clearer than that, well except perhaps those with zero intuition who need to be told a spade is infact a spade.

[Kelverin]

Oh we're playing that game are we, well... How about you start by presenting your evidence, and I'll just chuck every D&D game at you since 3e based games began production, better still... IWD2's rule implmentation when compared with IWD's rule implementation. I don't think it really comes any clearer than that, well except perhaps those with zero intuition who need to be told a spade is infact a spade.

I never said anything was a fact, only that I prefer the 2nd edition rules as well as the games (PC,PnP). I also stated that strictly adhering to the rules are not very important. Edited March 15, 2008 by Kelverin

[J.E. Sawyer]

Can you present your evidence to this fact? Scientific backing, statistics? Or is it really just your opinion?

 

I find it amusing really, that the "better rule set" will also be around the shortest period of time.

Why is that? Financial? Maybe someone who knows more about the subject care to explain this?

For all of the 2nd Ed. books that TSR put out, the majority of AD&D products during that time were setting-related. The setting books did poorly, and the rule books did very well. Unfortunately, the net result was TSR going out of business. Farewell, Spelljammer/Ravenloft/Dark Sun/Birthright, we hardly knew ye.

 

3E+ books have sold better than any other edition. I'm pretty sure the 3E PHB sold in over 500,000 units in its first few years. But WotC is now part of the Hasbro family, and the scale of Hasbro's sales across its various divisions dwarfs something like D&D. As popular as D&D is compared to other RPGs, it's a big fish in the very small pond of tabletop RPGs. And its mechanics are, fairly or not, compared to those in CRPGs and MMOs, where numbers don't lie and iteration times are decreased by a factor of 10 (number made up, but probably in the right ballpark).

 

Making a new edition is good financial sense and good "mechanical" sense. 3E was still clinging to a lot of sacred cows that were over 20 years old.

[Pop]

WotC:s most successful game (Magic) is one where they change the game in a fairly radical manor every year. And that is part of why the game is still so popular, it always feel fresh.

That's one way of looking at it, I guess, but I think "freshness" has nothing to do with it. I like the way the AV Club put it.

the entire CCG industry rests on the assumption that players will become obsessively nerdy over certain games, and pour an endless stream of money into the quest to be the best. But Magic, at least in America, is the granddaddy of them all: an endlessly variable pyramid scheme in which the most successful players have to sink vast amounts of money into buying all the latest and greatest cards, in order to keep their complicated strategies up to date. Actual Magic games tend to be fairly short, often 10 minutes or less; it's the shopping, strategizing, and endless deck-refining that eats years of players' lives. Dedicated players have thousands of cards, but have to choose only a bare handful of them for each game, which makes deck-building and deck-tuning a major obsession. Aggro or control? Creatures or spells? One-color deck or mixed colors? Is Akroma's Memorial worth it if you don't know whether your opponent is playing a black or red deck? Are thallids worth the work? Argh!

Obsessive collecting is the name of the game. While I can make up all the crap I want for a Pen and Paper game, Magic just isn't the same when you're using proxies. You'll probably hear the same complaints about it that you'd hear from WoWers who sweat out for an awesome weapon only for it to become common and thus passe within the span of a few weeks. Magic is an extreme example of that "freshness" being an incredible moneypit. I know "pro" players who will blow hundreds of dollars at tournaments because the "official rules" get slightly altered and their decks are rendered useless. There's something to be said for a game you can sink only about $300 into and have it last for 10 years or more.

Edited March 15, 2008 by Pop

[Spider]

WotC:s most successful game (Magic) is one where they change the game in a fairly radical manor every year. And that is part of why the game is still so popular, it always feel fresh.

That's one way of looking at it, I guess, but I think "freshness" has nothing to do with it. I like the way the AV Club put it.

the entire CCG industry rests on the assumption that players will become obsessively nerdy over certain games, and pour an endless stream of money into the quest to be the best. But Magic, at least in America, is the granddaddy of them all: an endlessly variable pyramid scheme in which the most successful players have to sink vast amounts of money into buying all the latest and greatest cards, in order to keep their complicated strategies up to date. Actual Magic games tend to be fairly short, often 10 minutes or less; it's the shopping, strategizing, and endless deck-refining that eats years of players' lives. Dedicated players have thousands of cards, but have to choose only a bare handful of them for each game, which makes deck-building and deck-tuning a major obsession. Aggro or control? Creatures or spells? One-color deck or mixed colors? Is Akroma's Memorial worth it if you don't know whether your opponent is playing a black or red deck? Are thallids worth the work? Argh!

Obsessive collecting is the name of the game. While I can make up all the crap I want for a Pen and Paper game, Magic just isn't the same when you're using proxies. You'll probably hear the same complaints about it that you'd hear from WoWers who sweat out for an awesome weapon only for it to become common and thus passe within the span of a few weeks. Magic is an extreme example of that "freshness" being an incredible moneypit. I know "pro" players who will blow hundreds of dollars at tournaments because the "official rules" get slightly altered and their decks are rendered useless. There's something to be said for a game you can sink only about $300 into and have it last for 10 years or more.

 

This is getting off-topic something fierce. But I feel a need to respond to this, because I think it's a common misconception.

 

1: While one game of Magic is indeed short, a game session isn't. You don't play one game, you play 20 (or any arbitrary number).

 

2: The most successful players don't "sink vasts amount of money into buying all the latest and greatest cards". They don't have to. They only need the cards for specific events and can usually borrow most of what they need then and there. Yes, the best players use proxies extensively, because their driving goal is to win tournaments. There are players who do spend these amounts of money, but they are not the hardcore tournament players. I've been on both sides of the fence. I used to buy a lot of cards, but when I was on the top of my game (at that time I was ranked as one of the top players in Sweden and I've competed both at Worlds and the Pro Tour) I didn't buy hardly any cards.

 

3: Even if the top tournament players did spend this kind of money, they are not representative of the typical customer. Most players won't even go near a tournament, completely satisfied with playing with their friends. These are the players that WotC makes the most money from, not because they buy so many cards, but because there's so many of them.

 

4: While releasing new expansions is good business from a money-making perspective, the "freshness factor" can't be underestimated. Many card games fail when they stop innovating. Even magic fails when they stop innovating. Players quit when the game gets dull and repetitive and many come back when new expansions are released that they find fun.

 

Again, my apologies for going so heavily off-topic.

[Stephen Amber]

It was? By whose standards, yours?

 

I thought at the time and still do that it's a terrible system. It's going bye bye and frankly I won't miss it, I might even go back to playing pnp again.

 

I simply made a comparison between some of the rules.

 

Here's one off the top of my head. 3e still spells. You take the feat, memorize one slot higher, thus removing the somatic component for the one spell.

 

2e's equivalent? Armored casting. Character may cast spells in armor of his choice. Period. That's all it says!

 

Oh, and I remember feats which allowed a character to reduce arcane sell failure chance in IWD2. NWN1 really could have used those...

Edited March 16, 2008 by Stephen Amber

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Oh we're playing that game are we, well... How about you start by presenting your evidence, and I'll just chuck every D&D game at you since 3e based games began production, better still... IWD2's rule implmentation when compared with IWD's rule implementation. I don't think it really comes any clearer than that, well except perhaps those with zero intuition who need to be told a spade is infact a spade.

I never said anything was a fact, only that I prefer the 2nd edition rules as well as the games (PC,PnP). I also stated that strictly adhering to the rules are not very important.

 

In regards to game creation, sticking to the rules may infact be part of the contract, everything is usually vetted by WotC, whom certainly have a considerable say over what happends with their own IP.

 

Personal preferance, does not indicate that any said rule system is better for implementation in a computer game. I have and I always shall say the same thing about rules, it's far too subjective a thing to be able to state a particular ruleset is more enjoyable than another, but you can state which has more logical mechanics, as frankly logic tends to be rather boolean, 3e mechanics are certainly more suited to implementation in a computer game environment, that's mostly down to logical complexity.

[Stephen Amber]

I think AoOs are pretty cumbersome

 

They used AoOs and threatened squares as the primary means of adding tactical depth. Having done away with facings, the question was no longer who do I present my front/shield side to and who do I present my backside to... it became how can I move to best threaten squares? Sometimes I miss facings... there was a certain satisfaction in sneaking up from behind and delivering a 1e/2e backstab for instance. But they made the choice, and without facings you are limited in what you can do tactically.

[Tigranes]

So what makes the AoO option better than the old facing/backstab option, tactically speaking?

 

I'm actually asking, because I don't know, not baiting. Personally I've never felt there to be much fun to be had in AoOs, but maybe in practice in pnp it works out differently.

[J.E. Sawyer]

AoOs create a new tactical aspect to movement. However, in practice, most of that goes out the window with 5' steps. In 4th Edition, "shifting" (taking a 5'/1 square step to avoid OAs provoked by movement) is your entire move action, which seems like a "no duh" change to me. In the D&D Experience module, the kobolds we fought were "Shifty", which meant that they could shift for free. It made them very difficult to deal with.

[Stephen Amber]

So what makes the AoO option better than the old facing/backstab option, tactically speaking?

 

It just made it simpler. You no longer had to figure out a different AC for your back, non shield side. If I remember right, AC from a buckler was only good against one opponent. A creature's anatomy no longer mattered for certain attacks... a 3e dragon's tail slap for instance could lash out in any direction. Stuff like that. Simplified and not always better.