The problem with straying to far from Dungeons and Dragons.

[kozzy]

Can't say I agree, at all.

[illathid]

 

 The problem is that it doesn't commit to be the "anti-D&D" that PS:T was. That game was a deliberate subversion of the entire franchise and genre.

 

Planescape was a D&D setting preceding PS:T by 5 years, so ... that claim is a little bit off.

 

 

No, there were design decisions made in particular to be a subversion of the genre. For example, the lack of swords, elves, dragons, etc. All of these exist in the Planescape setting but were not included in the game.

[Sanquiz]

A pit fall that I hope Obsidian isn't making with POE, a supposed spiritual successor to BG, is creating a new IP which may or may not stay true to the feel of D&D. The problem with a new IP, is creating an "original" IP based off of D&D lore without using D&D lore and history... in itself isn't new or refreshing, rather its what EVERY Fantasy game that isn't a D&D game does. Lets take Dragon Age for example, DAO used its own IP, with elves and dwarves and magic, all with its own spin and ideas. Where did it go wrong? The amount of lore, races, history and over all plot potential, would fit in a chapter of a BG or NWN game. You have to save a continent from an army of undead blighted beings? That's almost like how I sealed away a Demon Prince, a being who could go toe to toe with gods, or the time I stopped the Drow from sacrificing a Silver Dragon egg to the lower planes in exchange for a demon army, or was sealed away in a multi dimensional mage chamber which later became my personal dimensional space ship. Many people liked DAO, but from a story and writing point of view, it fell laughably short to BG2.

POE is going off there own path, that's fine... as long as they keep D&D themes and lore and history alive in the background, without it, we're going to have a game as much of a spiritual successor to BG2 as World of Warcraft, or Everquest... games that go "We have elves and dwarves, just they are OUR elves and dwarves" no infinite lore from D&D books, no rich, already fleshed out cultures and races, and potential world threats... just another fantasy game.

 

I don't play Baldur's gate because the D&D rules or lore...

 

Actually i don't likre D&D rules and still i love Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale with all their expansions.

 

Make sense for you?

 

I hope.

Edited March 15, 2015 by Arturo Sanquiz

[gkathellar]

 

 

 The problem is that it doesn't commit to be the "anti-D&D" that PS:T was. That game was a deliberate subversion of the entire franchise and genre.

 

Planescape was a D&D setting preceding PS:T by 5 years, so ... that claim is a little bit off.

 

 

No, there were design decisions made in particular to be a subversion of the genre. For example, the lack of swords, elves, dragons, etc. All of these exist in the Planescape setting but were not included in the game.

 

 

... but none of which are included very prominently in Planescape, either (there are planar half-elves, but it is specifically mentioned in the Planescape player's guide that most of the classic races don't have any significant presence in Sigil). The Blood War, Sigil, the Factions, the Rule of Three, the focus on philosophy, "belief shapes the planes" - all of that setting stuff that pervades and drives PS:T? - all from Planescape, and Planescape is original to D&D.

 

I take your meaning, and I'm not trying to undermine PS:T's successes, but most of what appears in said game is from the Planescape setting. You could certainly make the case that Torment is meant to be antithetical to typical swords-and-sorcery heroic fantasy, and I'd agree with you. But Planescape is uniquely D&D-esque in that it mostly dispenses with the swords-and-sorcery inspirations of the game it comes from, takes a huge chunk of said game's weirdness and original material and does something novel with it. Torment, in turn, is uniquely Planescape-esque, and that kind of inextricably ties it to D&D.

 

I think we may be on the same page in terms of ideas, and it's just that when you say "D&D" you're talking about generic FR and Greyhawk and bland bland bland. When I say D&D I mean the weird stuff: Athas, Eberron, the Demiplane of Dread, the Great Wheel, crystal spheres in wildspace, and all of that jazz. So that would naturally have different implcations to either of us.

[Cantousent]

I actually think the Planescape setting as itself trying to break away from traditional Dungeons and Dragons lore and conventions.  That's really my point, even within a setting, the people try to break out of constraining conventions.  It's that tug o' war between building on your base and exploring new ideas.  I don't think WotC (or whoever holds the DnD license at any given time) crams everything into one larger universe because it's better quality.  They do it because it fits better into a business model.  I'm not putting that down, but I have no doubt some of the designers of various campaign settings and supplemental books would have heaved a sigh of relief if they weren't boxed in by previous work.

[Diogenes]

Response and recontextualization are vital parts of art and artistic traditions (or the artistic tradition). All art is, in some way, a response to previous art, some more overtly than others. Virgil writes a Roman continuation to Homer, a highly scholarly version of the national creation myth. Shakespeare retells history and Italian short stories, expanding them into a universe. Jean Rhys writes Wide Sargasso Sea to give voice to the "madwoman in the attic" from Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre. All authors write in the shadow of their forebears, creating an artistic tradition. But every author who is remembered is remembered because they managed to add something to that tradition. All good authors will try to escape the shadow of their forebears.

[Cantousent]

Response and recontextualization are vital parts of art and artistic traditions (or the artistic tradition). All art is, in some way, a response to previous art, some more overtly than others. Virgil writes a Roman continuation to Homer, a highly scholarly version of the national creation myth. Shakespeare retells history and Italian short stories, expanding them into a universe. Jean Rhys writes Wide Sargasso Sea to give voice to the "madwoman in the attic" from Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre. All authors write in the shadow of their forebears, creating an artistic tradition. But every author who is remembered is remembered because they managed to add something to that tradition. All good authors will try to escape the shadow of their forebears.

/speechless

 

...And yet, for all my speech, nothing left to say.

[Aborto]

Wait, Dragon Age's setting is about magical forest supermen and divinely sponsored monarchies fighting a proxy war against not!Lucifer on behalf of a council of archangels and Norse deities, where all the wizards are actually ancient spirits, religion never comes up because it's assumed that everyone is roughly Christian, and basically all of the conflict in the setting was caused by one lady's really nice hair?

 

Haha fair enough description, I have to admit Lord of the rings wasnt exactly my cup of tea, even if I did like the books. Dragon age has humans, tall graceful elves, and short stocky cave dwelling dwarves, fighting what they may as well just have called orks in a middle ages pastural Europe setting. It looks and feels like LOtR far too much for my tastes. But then as I am not a fan of that setting I would tend to ignore all the other differences and focus on the annoying lapses in originality.

[PrimeJunta]

Wait, Dragon Age's setting is about magical forest supermen and divinely sponsored monarchies fighting a proxy war against not!Lucifer on behalf of a council of archangels and Norse deities, where all the wizards are actually ancient spirits, religion never comes up because it's assumed that everyone is roughly Christian, and basically all of the conflict in the setting was caused by one lady's really nice hair?

 

I have read many, many summaries of Tolkienian mythos, and this has got to be the best one to fit into one medium-length sentence I've seen.

 

(Imagine if Galadriel had been born a brunette. Much inconvenience would have been avoided.)

[PrimeJunta]

@illathid @gkathellar IMO Planescape -- the setting -- is itself a subversion of standard D&D. 

 

The people who made it had, basically, "been there, done that" with everything D&D. They wanted to do something different, and Planescape was the result. There was a phase in the history of AD&D when things went a little out of control; DM's had gotten bored with orcs and dragons and came out with some really strange ideas, most of which really... didn't work.* Planescape took everything from that period that could just possibly work and violently pummeled it until it did.

 

PS:T certainly put some additional twists into it (especially the delightfully aggravating way it made a mess of the character mechanics), but most of the weirdness is Planescape. 

 

*Case in point: throat leech. Who in their right mind thinks that would make for an interesting encounter? Flumph? Crypt thing? -- I have a first-edition Fiend Folio in my bookshelf and ... well, whatever it was the guys who wrote it were on, I do not want some.

[Luckmann]

@illathid @gkathellar IMO Planescape -- the setting -- is itself a subversion of standard D&D. 

 

The people who made it had, basically, "been there, done that" with everything D&D. They wanted to do something different, and Planescape was the result. There was a phase in the history of AD&D when things went a little out of control; DM's had gotten bored with orcs and dragons and came out with some really strange ideas, most of which really... didn't work.* Planescape took everything from that period that could just possibly work and violently pummeled it until it did.

 

PS:T certainly put some additional twists into it (especially the delightfully aggravating way it made a mess of the character mechanics), but most of the weirdness is Planescape. 

 

*Case in point: throat leech. Who in their right mind thinks that would make for an interesting encounter? Flumph? Crypt thing? -- I have a first-edition Fiend Folio in my bookshelf and ... well, whatever it was the guys who wrote it were on, I do not want some.

 

Drugs is a hell of a drug.

 

Response and recontextualization are vital parts of art and artistic traditions (or the artistic tradition). All art is, in some way, a response to previous art, some more overtly than others. Virgil writes a Roman continuation to Homer, a highly scholarly version of the national creation myth. Shakespeare retells history and Italian short stories, expanding them into a universe. Jean Rhys writes Wide Sargasso Sea to give voice to the "madwoman in the attic" from Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre. All authors write in the shadow of their forebears, creating an artistic tradition. But every author who is remembered is remembered because they managed to add something to that tradition. All good authors will try to escape the shadow of their forebears.

It is ironic that those that do, are the same people no right-thinking person would consider an artist. But beautifully said.

 

 

Although to be fair, most of those never realized that they stood on the shoulder of giants and in the shadow of greatness to begin with.

 

Edited March 16, 2015 by Luckmann

[Cantousent]

...And, to be fair, some giants have stood on the shoulders of people who were themselves no greater themselves.  I get a kick out of it because Roman artists, both in terms of literature and sculpture, were considered inferior to Greek artists who preceded and some were contemporary with them.  However, Italian artists in the same area at later periods overshadow their predecessors in many way.  Originating something doesn't mean that you get the last word, even if you get cred for getting the first word.

[gkathellar]

Response and recontextualization are vital parts of art and artistic traditions (or the artistic tradition). All art is, in some way, a response to previous art, some more overtly than others. Virgil writes a Roman continuation to Homer, a highly scholarly version of the national creation myth. Shakespeare retells history and Italian short stories, expanding them into a universe. Jean Rhys writes Wide Sargasso Sea to give voice to the "madwoman in the attic" from Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre. All authors write in the shadow of their forebears, creating an artistic tradition. But every author who is remembered is remembered because they managed to add something to that tradition. All good authors will try to escape the shadow of their forebears.

 

/slow clap

 

... although Virgil wrote the Aeneid on commission, and ostensibly despised it and tried to have it burned.

 

@illathid @gkathellar IMO Planescape -- the setting -- is itself a subversion of standard D&D. 

 

The people who made it had, basically, "been there, done that" with everything D&D. They wanted to do something different, and Planescape was the result. There was a phase in the history of AD&D when things went a little out of control; DM's had gotten bored with orcs and dragons and came out with some really strange ideas, most of which really... didn't work.* Planescape took everything from that period that could just possibly work and violently pummeled it until it did.

 

PS:T certainly put some additional twists into it (especially the delightfully aggravating way it made a mess of the character mechanics), but most of the weirdness is Planescape. 

 

*Case in point: throat leech. Who in their right mind thinks that would make for an interesting encounter? Flumph? Crypt thing? -- I have a first-edition Fiend Folio in my bookshelf and ... well, whatever it was the guys who wrote it were on, I do not want some.

 

Couldn't have put it better myself (I know because I was trying and failing).

 

Torment added some good stuff. It also added a few questionable things ... I'm actually still really bitter at how badly they screwed up the workings of portals.

[PrimeJunta]

I'm inclined to be forgiving about the portals.

 

One characteristic of Planescape is that it is wild. Step through a door in Sigil and you'll never be absolutely sure where you'll end up. You simply can't do that in a cRPG with limited scope. 

[gkathellar]

What bother me are the portals that lead from one part of Sigil to another part of Sigil, and the portals that don't lead to Sigil at all. I mean, it's not like this is some mortal sin or something, but it still irritates me, and it ends up weakening the last act of the story.

[Cantousent]

Apart from the putative issues Virgil had with his work, the Aeneid was hugely successful.  I tend to fall more on the 'Hellenist' side of things, preferring the ancient Greeks in terms of artistry, but I actually think of the Aeneid as truly excellent and a worthy competitor from the Roman collection.  Don't get me wrong, I love Homer, both the bard and the cartoon character, but Virgil can swing a bat in the same league any day.  ...And, in some ways, Virgil is superior.  Take epithets, for example.  Assuming there was one Homer (which I actually do believe), his works were built on oral traditions and his use of epithets relied on a lot of help over a long time from many many people telling the stories.  The epithets were an aid, a convention that helped the bards fill out the poetic line and also, like repetition, were useful for remembering things in an oral tradition.   By the time of Virgil's work, epithets had transcended utility.  While they remained useful for the same reason they were useful in the Iliad and the Odyssey, they were also part of the literature and Virgil had to fashion or modify them himself. Virgil had to come up with a lot of his work and fit it into a epic that could be art *and* propaganda. Even today, with our jaded and judgmental society, the art still wins.

 

That's why I say that no one gets the last word.  ...And that's also why I say that even if they had the ip rights to DnD, I'd still be glad that Obsidz created their own world.  It might have been better to have and use the rights from a commercial standpoint,  but it would be no better and probably worse from an artistic one.

[Diogenes]

I'm still hoping for a modern reinterpretation of Catullus 16, preferably within the context of a flyting quest in a fantasy RPG.

[Failion]

Seems like the topic creator simply likes one setting over another. Nobody cares about infinite lore. Only if they like said lore. Dragon age is more realistic while dnd is high fantasy where one guy can kill 1000 orcs. Personally I like mixing sci fi with high fantasy. I think its really cool having a setting where you mix both. The lion clothed barbarian with a broadsword has the same chance to beat a laser gun shooting assassin. It all comes down to their individual power level. Everyone has the potential to be awesome no matter what technology they use or gods they believe in.

[anameforobsidian]

I think the OP makes a few mistakes:

1.  Assuming that a game with a DnD setting actually benefits from the "infinite lore."  As a counter-example I give you the original campaign of NWN.

2.  Assuming that DnD races are fleshed out and interesting.  Frequently they're thin stereotypes or incredibly unrealistically portrayed.  I found the Drow incredibly unrealistic and annoying in BG2.  Underdark was cool though.

3.  Assuming that a game needs a ton of lore to make a convincing setting.  As a counter-example, I give you Gothic I.

4.  Assuming DnD themes are the end all be all of fantasy story-telling.  They're not.  I read Darwinia and Alif the Unseen in the last week, neither were bog-standard fantasy and both were quite good.

5.  Lumping all DnD settings into one.  Most DnD games don't use all the universes.  Non-Forgotten Realms is rare, especially Eberron, and Dark Sun is practically unheard of.  When they are there, they hardly crossover with any settings  (DDO being a notable exception).

[Goddard]

I really like the stories from D&D, but I think it can be fantasy and still have an excellent story that has magic and dragons, or other random creatures.  Before D&D many stories had those elements.  I think we should all really try and develop an open source creative commons lore similar to that of D&D since hasbro, or what ever mega corp got ahold of it ... the rules constantly change and it has gotten retarded in my opinion. 

[Archaven]

I see no problem straying far away from DnD. And actually love what Obsidian is doing. One of the thing i dislike is the D20 system where i feel it's severely limited and not practical for a CRPG.

Edited March 17, 2015 by Archaven

[ManifestedISO]

Apart from the putative issues Virgil had with his work, the Aeneid was hugely successful.  I tend to fall more on the 'Hellenist' side of things, preferring the ancient Greeks in terms of artistry, but I actually think of the Aeneid as truly excellent and a worthy competitor from the Roman collection.  Don't get me wrong, I love Homer, both the bard and the cartoon character, but Virgil can swing a bat in the same league any day.  ...And, in some ways, Virgil is superior.  Take epithets, for example.  Assuming there was one Homer (which I actually do believe), his works were built on oral traditions and his use of epithets relied on a lot of help over a long time from many many people telling the stories.  The epithets were an aid, a convention that helped the bards fill out the poetic line and also, like repetition, were useful for remembering things in an oral tradition.   By the time of Virgil's work, epithets had transcended utility.  While they remained useful for the same reason they were useful in the Iliad and the Odyssey, they were also part of the literature and Virgil had to fashion or modify them himself. Virgil had to come up with a lot of his work and fit it into a epic that could be art *and* propaganda. Even today, with our jaded and judgmental society, the art still wins.

 

That's why I say that no one gets the last word.  ...And that's also why I say that even if they had the ip rights to DnD, I'd still be glad that Obsidz created their own world.  It might have been better to have and use the rights from a commercial standpoint,  but it would be no better and probably worse from an artistic one.

 

Who are you and what have you done with Barney Fife. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBuPQgV8yBM

[Cantousent]

It was a pickle, but I eventually got it!  <.<  As an aside, RIP Don Knotts.

[Giantevilhead]

While Dragon Age did try to have its own spin on traditional fantasy ideas, it spun pretty deeply into Warhammer territory.

 

The biggest advantage of being a part of a franchise like D&D would be cross-promotion and access to additional related entertainment. If you really liked BG2 and all the lore of Faerun, you can get more of what you like with other D&D games and the pnp game. If you really liked the lore of PoE, you only have the game and no immediate access to other entertainment in the same setting so you'll have to wait for the expansion and sequels. Similarly, WotC is able to promote D&D games through its various channels to increase exposure and sales. However, since WotC would not let Obsidian use its licenses under reasonable terms, they don't have access to any of WotC's media resources.

[Acesahn]

Mmh. 

 

There isn't really a "D&D lore." There's a ton of wildly different and often inconsistent D&D lores, loosely hooked together by various more or less clunky conceits. Some of it is utterly brilliant, some of it is jejune, most of it is immensely serviceable as background for role-playing games, tabletop or otherwise. Very little of it is particularly original, and internal consistency or depth are not its strong suits. If you took a random bit of D&D lore and changed the names, I contend that you would be unlikely to flag it as specifically "D&D" rather than just "cheesy but lovable generic fantasy." (This does not apply to all D&D settings; Dark Sun and especially Planescape for example, despite the literary antecedents of both.)

 

By lore, I meant the races and gods (Maybe cultures, like the Drow...), not to mention the fantastic classes and game mechanics. Thats another thing I forgot to mention, was how much I was looking foreword to another complicated, adaptable class system (Another thing Dragon Age was outclassed in, when put up against BG). There is SO many spells and class quirks that set it apart from modern video games. After learning the science behind a War Priest/Cleric, for my main in NWN2, learning how a cleric could be a mediocre damage and support... or a walking tower of buffs and destruction, or a mix between support and a mage, ALL without going outside of the clerics class! (Multiclassing makes the system even MORE complicated and rich to understand) I was really hoping to bring it all back, the races, the gods, the classes... I was actually shocked when everyone here on the forums realized it was never going to be that way, I was actually caught off guard.