Wizards of the Coast - D&D Video games coming

I need me some thac0.

Originally Posted by rjshae
The final question of the WotC OGL FAQ covers the topic:

https://www.wizards.com/default.asp?…lfaq/20040123f

Kingmaker is based on Pathfinder, which I believe is based upon OGL.

Thanks,

I found the software FAQ which I read before, which lead me to look for another system

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x…lfaq/20040123i

Q: What is different if I use the d20 System License?

A: In addition to following all the rules of the OGL for any Open Content you use, the d20 System Guide doesn't let you describe the process for creating a character, describe the process for applying experience to a character, and cannot be an interactive game.

NOTE: Please pay attention to the section of the license that prohibits a Covered Product from being an interactive game. It is not enough to say your product isn't a game; the license gives a definition for what is considered to constitute an interactive game.

"Interactive Game": means a piece of software that is designed to accept inputs from human players or their agents, and use rules to resolve the success or failure of those inputs, and return some indication of the results of those inputs to the users.

This includes the obvious examples of attacking in combat, saving throws, and skill checks, but also includes dice rolling for character ability scores and hit points and rolling for damage. Why? Because in the d20 System a higher number is almost always better. Rolling an 18 for strength is obviously a preferable outcome to rolling a 3. In any circumstance where one outcome is quantifiably better than another is considered by Wizards to be an indication of success or failure; the software cannot perform these kinds of operations without breaching the license.

Q: Why can't I use those things in my program?

A: No d20 System Product can include rules for character creation or applying experience. In exchange for using the d20 logo you are prohibited from making a product that replaces the core rulebooks. Covered Products supplement the core rulebooks; they may not replace them. That is why all Covered Products must state that they require the use of the core rules.

The interactive game restriction exists because Wizards has an exclusive licensee for all interactive games. Authorizing other parties to make electronic games would violate the exclusive terms of that license.

But they also nicely sum up my point

To conclude, here is a quick checklist of things to do when using the licenses with software:

1 - Decide if you are going to use the d20 System License (allows you to claim compatibility with D&D and to use the d20 Logo)…

Which is all the license really allows you to do as game rules can't be protected. Preventing the use of media or copying whole passages from the core materials would fall under just straight copyright laws.

Ok, I don't know anything about the 5th edition, but it sounds promising, from the comments.

My favorite has always been 1st edition, AD&D, so if 5th edition is going back to some of those traditions - going "old school" - then great.

That said, am I really that hung up on this, (what rules edition is used) especially for a computer game? Nah. As long as the rules make sense, and have the foundations and standards of typical rpgs, then I'm good…

I am more optimistic than some, and am looking forward to the new D&D rpg games scheduled to be released in the future. Unless these games are made primarily as co-op experiences, with single player missing or a poorly designed afterthought, that would put me off. Otherwise, I would definitely give at least the first game released a shot.

But as far as tv/movies, then I also think it will most likely be crap, just because Hollywood typically does fantasy really, really badly. I can count the number of really good fantasy movies on one hand. And its also very often done in a cringe-worthy and cheesy manner, which is not true to the spirit of traditional fantasy. (with a few notable exceptions)

I was just thinking if one of our beloved rpg game developers could be brought in to make a D&D game…that would be so awesome. They would have a chance to make a truly great game with such a rich history, world setting, and heritage to work with.

My preference for which studio to make the new D&D game, in order of who I think would do the best job, (though I think all of them would do great work)

1. Obsidian - I have been following Pillars of Eternity 2 recently, and whoa, it's looking brilliant. That, and their long history of making rpgs, with industry veterans, leads me to think they would be the best ones to receive the franchise in the form of making a new D&D game. I would have a ton of confidence in them to do it right, and true to the spirit, in an old school way.

2. InXile - another great rpg developer with lots of veterans and talent - these guys know what they are doing when it comes to making classical rpgs. Wasteland 2 proved that, to my mind, beyond a doubt. Obsidian only shaved them by a hair to be put in 1st place on my list, because I also would have high confidence in this team to make an outstanding D&D game.

3. Larian - Ok, I know they are the most beloved game studio around these parts. And I am also a huge fan. But, I put them in 3rd place because they tend to add the "goof factor" to their rpgs, in a way that is too much for my taste. I don't like too much goofiness or humor in my rpgs - instead, I want them deadly serious, in tone and setting. And I would also want my D&D game to follow these principles.

Larian kind of has a signature now, with the goofy humor and cartoony stuff in their rpg games, and it works for them. I would like to say, I really enjoy their games too. That said, do I think they could go super serious and make a superb D&D game, of course!
I just don't have as high a confidence level in them to do this as in the other two developers.

Originally Posted by Arkadia7
My favorite has always been 1st edition, AD&D,

First edition is the one where Elf and Dwarf are a class and not a race. Is that the one you mean?

AD&D is a computer adaption of 2nd edition rules. (goldbox and baldurs gate, etc)

"Cocks’ personal history….."

Huh hmm huh hmm yeah yeah……

Originally Posted by Arkadia7
I was just thinking if one of our beloved rpg game developers could be brought in to make a D&D game…that would be so awesome. They would have a chance to make a truly great game with such a rich history, world setting, and heritage to work with.

My preference for which studio to make the new D&D game, in order of who I think would do the best job, (though I think all of them would do great work)

1. Obsidian - I have been following Pillars of Eternity 2 recently, and whoa, it's looking brilliant. That, and their long history of making rpgs, with industry veterans, leads me to think they would be the best ones to receive the franchise in the form of making a new D&D game. I would have a ton of confidence in them to do it right, and true to the spirit, in an old school way.

2. InXile - another great rpg developer with lots of veterans and talent - these guys know what they are doing when it comes to making classical rpgs. Wasteland 2 proved that, to my mind, beyond a doubt. Obsidian only shaved them by a hair to be put in 1st place on my list, because I also would have high confidence in this team to make an outstanding D&D game.

3. Larian - Ok, I know they are the most beloved game studio around these parts. And I am also a huge fan. But, I put them in 3rd place because they tend to add the "goof factor" to their rpgs, in a way that is too much for my taste. I don't like too much goofiness or humor in my rpgs - instead, I want them deadly serious, in tone and setting. And I would also want my D&D game to follow these principles.

Larian kind of has a signature now, with the goofy humor and cartoony stuff in their rpg games, and it works for them. I would like to say, I really enjoy their games too. That said, do I think they could go super serious and make a superb D&D game, of course!
I just don't have as high a confidence level in them to do this as in the other two developers.

1. They took IE games and raped them with their PoE game. Master of balance, Sawyer, took it as his personal quest to "fix" D&D wth PoE. PoE2 is going even further away with implementing cooldowns fulltime and making resting even less important.
I would not trust him to make a Ikea wardrobe following IKEA own instructions. I am sure the end product would be "improved"
2. Only thing Inxile showed is that they are utterly incompetent. Both WL2 and TToN are deeply flawed games that took too much time and too much money to make (for WL2 I consider WL2DC the end product, just WL2 was pretty terrible game and best to be forgotten).
If I gave them that IKEA wardrobe I would get it 2 months later and they would charge me an additional cost of buying it (they would come up with a reason for it)
3. If they would make a TB version of the game, they would be preferable to these two other companies. But I am not sure they would still be perfect for the job.

Originally Posted by SirJames
First edition is the one where Elf and Dwarf are a class and not a race. Is that the one you mean?

AD&D is a computer adaption of 2nd edition rules. (goldbox and baldurs gate, etc)

No, you're talking about D&D, which came after Chainmail as a variant and before AD&D.

1st Edition AD&D is the one without THACO - and 2nd Edition AD&D introduced THACO. They're NOT "computer adaptions" - though Goldbox and BG used an adaption of 2nd Edition rules. Goldbox used a very simplified form while BG was closer to the actual rules.

These days, they're just calling it D&D - but 3.0+ are all iterations of AD&D, which was vastly superior to D&D in terms of complexity and options.

I know these things, because I've played them all

Yea, NewDArt is correct. It was definitely AD&D 1st edition. This was all the rage and very popular at the time in the early 1980s. There are core rulebooks from that time that came in hardcover that most people who grew up playing D&D at the time would recognize. Here is a good wikipedia article that talks about the different editions, and the timeline of them:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edit…ns_%26_Dragons

It's funny, because I also used to always mix this up too, and thought that it was 2nd edition AD&D that I had played a lot back in the day, but that edition came later (1989)

Anyway, I also disagree completely with Archangel's reply to my post, obviously. Basically, Archangel wrote the opposite of my views, in what his preferences and thoughts are about the various rpg developers. Kind of amusing, in a mirror image type way…

I think success will hinge a great deal not on which rule set used but on whether the D&D rules are used at all. If SCL is any indicator putting the label on anything creates an expectation of a,b,c races, x,y and z classes, levels, spells and all the mechanics people are used to (I suppose their marketing did heavily leverage those expectations).

Will be interesting to see whether these are actual D&D rules based games or games merely in a D&D setting, or a combination of both. Take Tomb of Annihilation for example, it's dumbed down D&D rules in a digital board game. Does this mean perhaps living card games or RTS types could be on the way. GW ip has been turned into many different gaming formats, why not D&D? There's just as much well established lore.

Ahh, yes, I see! So, the 3rd edition was of 2nd edition and 3rd edition was 4th!

I didn't think you'd like the first edition the most. I've only played it in Shadow Over Mystara, the arcade brawler game, but obviously dwarf is a race! Though you can be a human dwarf, even in this reality. Let me try the other one…

Obviously elf is a race! You can't be a human elf. I suppose, if we're being "modern" about it maybe you can be a human that identifies as an elf, and there's nothing wrong with that, but you're still an eccentric human wizard and not a human real elf wizard.

Will be interesting to see whether these are actual D&D rules based games or games merely in a D&D setting, or a combination of both.

I think while we may well see a handful of WOTC licenced small indie games like Tales From Candlekeep we won't be seeing even one AAA D&D game.

The rants too long to bother, but there's really no good reason to make your game use D&D rules and lore. High fantasy is all the same Lord of the Rings derived elves and orcs, anyway.

I feel like SCL was the end of D&D games. The future of D&D can only be in its past, rebooting old games. There is just absolutely no way we'll see a 5E game that is better than the original NWN. Everything AAA needs to be games as a service with microtransations and all that crap and mods become hacks when online play is involved. Some people have too much time to play, some not enough, along comes daily quests and minimum required time played rather than skill played, etc, etc

We've come from Ultima Online and Neverwinter Nights and ended up with Shroud of the Avatar and Sword Coast Legends. (edit: and if you look what SotA is doing with virtual sales taking precedence over all else, SCL were pretty good guys going broke just doing one free expansion. Do you see how doomed we are?)

I still hold hope for a decent single player D&D game. It won't be AAA for the reasons you say, but that's fine by me. There's no way a AAA game would include the complexity I'd like to see in a D&D game anyway! I'm hoping David Gaider is working on something new and D&D related at Beamdog… I'm going to be very disappointed if not!

Considering its popular longevity I've never quite understood why someone (say like WotC teamed up with a studio) wouldn't just do a modern NWN clone with never ending modules as DLC. I guess it might be diminishing investment vs reward. Still, for someone like me, it'd be most welcome.

I'm looking forward to see what comes of the NWN:EE. There has been talk of new content. Whilst I don't mind it they're going to have to update the graphics engine to get new players really interested. Personally I'm also disappointed that party control has been ruled out. Still, will be interesting to see what sort of resurgence comes post full release.

Originally Posted by SirJames
AD&D is a computer adaption of 2nd edition rules. (goldbox and baldurs gate, etc)

I know you already get answered, but answers are a bit complex, so no goldbox and BG aren't based on a same edition. Yes for both it's AD&D, but 1 for Pool of Radiance, and 2 for BG series until IWD II that used the 3.

Originally Posted by Dasale
I know you already get answered, but answers are a bit complex, so no goldbox and BG aren't based on a same edition. Yes for both it's AD&D, but 1 for Pool of Radiance, and 2 for BG series until IWD II that used the 3.

That's incorrect. Pool of Radiance used THAC0 - and was partially based on 2nd Edition rules - as THAC0 didn't exist in 1st Edition AD&D.

Also, IIRC - later Goldbox games were based on "pure" 2nd Edition rules.

I didn't even know there was a D&D verison without THAC0 until this thread. But I'm sure there was AC in pool and you can't have AC without THAC0…. Unless you can? How did first edition AD&D work, anyway? Was it just damage rolls?

Originally Posted by SirJames
I didn't even know there was a D&D verison without THAC0 until this thread. But I'm sure there was AC in pool and you can't have AC without THAC0…. Unless you can? How did first edition AD&D work, anyway? Was it just damage rolls?

Yes you can.

In 1st Edition AD&D to-hit was determined by using old-school roll tables (comparing AC to the die roll) - where you had to look up stuff each and every combat

Unless you had a DM screen, that is.

We definitely used THACO before 2nd edition came out. Some quick research shows that THACO was actually introduced in first edition, but that it was introduced in the Dungeon Master Guide, not in the Player handbook. It was introduced as an easier alternative and I believe it was fairly widely used even before it became "official" in 2nd edition.

That sounds right, I seem to recall it being an optional thing for advanced players. But it wasn't "official" until 2nd Edition - and I remember we only started using it after we went to 2nd Edition.

Since PoR came out in 1988 - it stands to reason it was using the DMG THAC0. I stand corrected

Wasn't THAC0 ("to hit armour class 0") basically a way of calculating the hit roll without using the roll table provided in 1ed D&D? Ie, it was technically a mechanic in 1ed but just not formalised as "THAC0" until later editions.

Mind you, when I started P&Ping I got AD&D before the Red Box and of course couldn't work any of this out. I hadn't realised the Red Box was a necessity - I thought AD&D would be a complete rule set. I was playing the Gold Box games at the time and lifted loads of rules from there and made some other stuff up. So my memories of all this are probably wrong…