Interview Chris Avellone Interviewed at GamesIndustry

[Ulminati]

LOL he mentions the hypothetical possibility of a Wasteland 3 is W2 gets a good reception. I guess he forgot that Brian is only a licensee and the IP still belongs to EA. If W2 proves profitably, EA would be all over W3.

Even if it's going to be relatively profitable, it doesn't seem to be the kind of profit EA would care for, though, no? (I.e., not comparable to Mass Effect or Skyrim.)

Silly Bee. EA doesn't care about profit. Only about finding good things that make you happy and snuffing all joy and life out of them

 

[Castanova]

PS:T without D&D would have been a really, really solid lore compendium. Ideally, he could have sold it in hardcover with glossy pages for true fans who pre-ordered while everyone else gets a paperback copy.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Even if it's going to be relatively profitable, it doesn't seem to be the kind of profit EA would care for, though, no? (I.e., not comparable to Mass Effect or Skyrim.)

They'll figure they can do it better.

But, is this really the case? I thought Fargo got the full license?

 

[Ulminati]

glossy pages for true fans

Letterpress on high quality amalfi paper, bound in ethiopian sheep leather

 

[Brother None]

Eh? What about the PnP Planescape? All that belief stuff is there.
And what's the problem with bending the rules like they did in Torment?

Playing a PnP is inherently different, because computers need to have statistical equivalents to make something effective.

As Colin McComb put it: "Belief being power. There’s no stat for belief. Some of those things had to be fudged, but since there’s no actual stat for belief in tabletop AD&D, I think we did all right with what we had."

They did bend it as far as it could go. Chris did note "the Planescape source material itself was designed to bend (and break) various D&D rules.". But he also noted "While doing design for Neverwinter Nights 2 and NWN2: Mask of the Betrayer, I usually found there was always a dialogue skill (Taunt, Appraise, Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, etc.) that could be called into play for any particular conversation. In Torment, we kept most of those options statistic-dependent (Strength, Wisdom, etc.), but a more skill-based system to go along with the stats is my preference." AD&D experience improving, still not ideal.

I think he's learned over the years what is obvious to most people who've played a lot of AD&D and other cRPGs; a customized system built with the goals of a computer RPG in mind is always better than a directly translated pen and paper system, especially one as wonky as AD&D (as opposed to one designed for flexibility, like GURPS). Like he said, it's too constraining. Even bending the rules to their fullest, you have too many pre-existing rules and setting logics that you can't change, which sticks you to a certain rigidity of design. Even if there weren't other overwhelming reasons to abandon AD&D (as I mention below), this alone would be a good reason to drop it.

So what's the point then? He previously said TNO's story is done so no direct sequel. If it's not in the Planescape setting either, then what exactly is it? Game Written By Avellone The Kickstarter?

Game with a PlaneScape-esque setting written by MCA, yes.

What's the point of doing a Kickstarter with the AD&D license? So Atari can get its grubby mits on it? coz they've been doing so well producing AD&D games of late, right?

LOL he mentions the hypothetical possibility of a Wasteland 3 is W2 gets a good reception. I guess he forgot that Brian is only a licensee and the IP still belongs to EA. If W2 proves profitably, EA would be all over W3.

inXile owns the Wasteland IP. They just needed EA's permission to use assets from WL1 in WL2 (things like the Rangers, the Citadel). I'm not sure even that would be needed again for a sequel, since by then inXile has officially used it in their own property.

 

[FeelTheRads]

But he also noted "While doing design forNeverwinter Nights 2andNWN2: Mask of the Betrayer, I usually found there was always a dialogue skill (Taunt, Appraise, Diplomacy, Bluff, Intimidate, etc.) that could be called into play for any particular conversation.

Torment used 2nd edition rules while NWN2 used 3.5. What's that got to do with anything? They could use 3.5 if they want more options.

Game with a PlaneScape-esque setting written by MCA, yes.

Right.

What's the point of doing a Kickstarter with the AD&D license? So Atari can get its grubby mits on it? coz they've been doing so well producing AD&D games of late, right?

Hmm... why would they? The deal would have to be with WotC, no? There's also the OGL which Knights Of The Chalice uses.

 

[villain of the story]

They'll figure they can do it better.

But, is this really the case? I thought Fargo got the full license?

Yes, license. For Wasteland 2. Not the ownership of Wasteland IP.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Yes, license. For Wasteland 2. Not the ownership of Wasteland IP.

See what Brother None said in his last post.

 

[communard]

I've always held to the belief that the biggest issue with Planescape as a setting is the D&D system itself which really doesn't mesh with the themes explored. D&D being kinda dull to begin with doesn't help. A modified version of the Storyteller System or something similar would be a much better match.

 

[Brother None]

Yes, license. For Wasteland 2. Not the ownership of Wasteland IP.

EA hasn't owned the Wasteland IP in ages. They let it die out (it would have been dead already when Fallout was made if not for being resurrected by the Interplay Anthology box). Konami picked it up for use with the Yu-Gi-Oh license, and inXile bought it from them. This was back in 2003. They have fully owned the name since, just not the property in the original game (this is similar to how they owned the Bard's Tale name but not the game's content, which made the reboot devoid of any of the original content, only this time EA was more amenable to letting Fargo use it). inXile then got those rights to use content from EA (with no monetary compensation involved). I'm not sure how that would work for WL3, that much is true.

Torment used 2nd edition rules while NWN2 used 3.5. What's that got to do with anything? They could use 3.5 if they want more options.

Or they could create something brand-new or select something actually suited to the setting (which was retired, no?) and not be limited by AD&D's rules and definitions at all.

Also, WotC isn't going to allow a new 3.5 game, are they? It's 4 or nothing.

Hmm... why would they? The deal would have to be with WotC, no? There's also the OGL which Knights Of The Chalice uses.

I think Atari still has the exclusive video gaming sublicense? I know it was set to die out soon so maybe it already did and I forgot about it. Dealing with WotC isn't much better, though.

Just being realistic about it tells you all you need to know. WotC/Atari aren't going to resurrect a discontinued setting for a crowdfunded game, and they aren't going to let you develop it unimpeded, and they won't allow you to use anything other than AD&D 4th ed. There is just way, way too many reasons to stay far away from AD&D on this one.

 

[Morkar Left]

Pathfinder has an OGL, too (and D&D 3.5 is still available as OGL I think). Iit's basically D&D 3.75. And I think they would be happy to provide it to a videogame. Just a random thought.

 

[Mrowak]

Torment used 2nd edition rules while NWN2 used 3.5. What's that got to do with anything? They could use 3.5 if they want more options.

Or they could create something brand-new and not be limited by AD&D's rules and definitions at all.

Hmm... why would they? The deal would have to be with WotC, no? There's also the OGL which Knights Of The Chalice uses.

I think Atari still has the exclusive video gaming sublicense? I know it was set to die out soon so maybe it already did and I forgot about it. Dealing with WotC isn't much better, though.

Open license shouldn't be a problem and if worst comes to worst they could circumvent that by e.g. simply contacting Paizo and signing much cheaper licencing agreement with them, and then doing whatever catches they fancy with Pathfinder ruleset, which encourages experimentation (To put things in context, Pathfinder ruleset is basically D&D3.75 made by former WotC employees who trolled their former overlords by taking the previous rules and using them as a basis of a better game than D&D 4.0 ever was. They actually encourage using all the books from D&D 3.0, 3.5 as fully compatible with their game. WotC canot really get over the fact that they cannot sue their asses to this day.).

I understand your position BN, but I think the ruleset itself is the least of concerns since - as you say - it has to adjusted to gameplay format to begin with. The settings are far more important, and this is a deal breaker with WotC. Basically Obsidian wouldn't be allowed to use or refer to anything created by ISR or WotC explicitly. So no Baator, no Githyanki and Githzerai, no Mindflayers, no city of Sigil, no modrons etc. And it could kinda be a deal-breaker if this ban extended to characters from the previous game (e.g. Daakon). I have no clue how to go around that.

 

[Brother None]

Create a new, similar setting. There really is no other way, to be honest.

Everyone and their mother is misreporting this interview as MCA saying he wants to make a sequel to Planescape: Torment. He explicitly does NOT say that, he says he wants to make a spiritual sequel, "like Fallout was to Wasteland".

The incredible laziness of game journalists is really starting to get to me. Even RPS lazily misreported this. And I actually like those guys. But holy shit.

PS: better hire Zeb Cook!

 

[FeelTheRads]

Just being realistic about it tells you all you need to know. WotC/Atari aren't going to resurrect a discontinued setting for a crowdfunded game, and they aren't going to let you develop it unimpeded, and they won't allow you to use anything other than AD&D 4th ed. There is just way, way too many reasons to stay far away from AD&D on this one.

Yes, well, I'm OK with changing the ruleset (although they could use D&D OGL) as long as it's not something Obsidian patches together. But the setting? Nah... Torment owes most of what it is to the setting. I don't trust Obsidian to come up with a compelling setting.
It would be a stretch too to call it a spiritual successor, by the way. Not a direct sequel, not the same setting, nothing to tie with Torment except the lead writer and a plane hopping?

 

[Brother None]

Yes, well, I'm OK with changing the ruleset (although they could use D&D OGL) as long as it's not something Obsidian patches together. But the setting? Nah... Torment owes most of what it is to the setting. I don't trust Obsidian to come up with a compelling setting.

Well, how high do you think the odds are of WotC allowing anyone to make any game in a discontinued setting? Or are you saying you'd simply prefer this project not to happen at all (a perfectly valid viewpoint, some ideas or sequels just aren't worth exploring, though I wouldn't necessarily agree in this case).

It would be stretch too to call it a spiritual successor, by the way. Not a direct sequel, not the same setting, nothing to tie with Torment except the lead writer and a plane hopping?

Yeh? Fallout was Wasteland's spiritual successor, it was not in the same setting, and didn't even have any developers working on it to tie the two together.

 

[Mrowak]

Create a new, similar setting. There really is no other way, to be honest.

Everyone and their mother is misreporting this interview as MCA saying he wants to make a sequel to Planescape: Torment. He explicitly does NOT say that, he says he wants to make a spiritual sequel, "like Fallout was to Wasteland".

The incredible laziness of game journalists is really starting to get to me. Even RPS lazily misreported this.

PS: better hire Zeb Cook!

People kinda jump out of their shoes when the Q&A is:

Q: One last thing. Tempted by a Planescape Kickstarter?
Chris Avellone: Yes! Very tempted.

He clarifies it, but let's face it:

MCA kinda did PS:T spiritual successor already - with MotB. I don't know how you can be closer to Planescape: Torment than this without becoming a direct sequel.

And if the question is about creating similar setting, then again Pathfinder really takes a lot from D&D universes (including Planescape) without calling them directly by their names.

 

[kaizoku]

These interviews always leave me mildly butthurt... they remind me that I will have to wait until at least 2014 for an MCA kickstarter

They should take the OGL 3.5 or Pathfinder license and tweak it to their needs. The basic rules are rocksolid and they can be easily changed. AD&D was more restrictive.

^ this

I understand your position BN, but I think the ruleset itself is the least of concerns since - as you say - it has to adjusted to gameplay format to begin with. The settings are far more important, and this is a deal breaker with WotC. Basically Obsidian wouldn't be allowed to use or refer to anything created by ISR or WotC explicitly. So no Baator, no Githyanki and Githzerai, no Mindflayers, no city of Sigil, no modrons etc. And it could kinda be a deal-breaker if this ban extended to characters from the previous game (e.g. Daakon). I have no clue how to go around that.

They could probably come up with some decent lore and setting on their own.
Their recurring problem tends to be the combat.

 

[FeelTheRads]

Well, how high do you think the odds are of WotC allowing anyone to make any game in a discontinued setting? Or are you saying you'd simply prefer this project not to happen at all (a perfectly valid viewpoint, some ideas or sequels just aren't worth exploring, though I wouldn't necessarily agree in this case).

Don't have anything against it. Won't be called Torment 2 so I'm not gonna be butthurt about it. Just saying that I lost a lot of the interested I had in this and I don't trust them to even come close to Torment in terms of setting.
And speaking of rules... I really don't think those were the problem in Torment. The problem was that they weren't used enough, for example with good combat encounters. Not the fault of the rules if you didn't use them properly.

Yeh? Fallout was Wasteland's spiritual successor, it was not in the same setting, and didn't even have any developers working on it to tie the two together.

I don't think it's quite the same. Torment is way too tied to its setting. Wasteland is really quite generic despite the "LOL BRIGHT COLORS IS WASTELAND CUZ W1 HAD BRIGHT COLORZ" claims of some tards.
What is there to Torment that can be explored in a spiritual successor if the setting isn't there?

 

[LeStryfe79]

Torment could easily use a 3.5 variant since most of it is public domain(see pathfinder) In fact, I think they should make a deal with Paizo and actually create a Planescape like setting as a Pathfinder campaign. That way, both companies get to fuck over WotC, a good game gets made, and everyone is happy. Fuck WotC.

 

[Alex]

It seems most people here are divided on whether a Torment sequel (spiritual or not) should adopt the new, 3e or later rules of D&D, or should go with a brand new rules set. So, I thought I would drop by and try do defend 2e and earlier a bit.

I mean, I understand the appeal of the later editions for a combat heavy game. A gold box like game would benefit from using 3e, or maybe even 4e, I think. The rules of these games seem to have in focus the "three pillars" of the D&D, mentioned in Mike Mearls's interview. So, the rules are more focused on describing how these three things, combat, exploration and interaction, should go. For example, 4e had rules to deal with traps by having the DM build them as an "encounter" (or something like that) where there is a series of challenges to be vanquished with skill rolls and other abilities the character possess. By the rules, this is certainly more interesting than simply rolling your Find/Disarm Traps percentage. There were similar improvements to the combat, by the rules.

But obviously, the point of combat and traps and what not in AD&D 2e, or 1e, or even old, plain D&D, isn't to simply play things by the rules. Yeah, simply rolling the percentage and determining if the players find or not the trap isn't much fun. And if you take the time to look at these percentages, most early level characters were pretty much screwed. But the point of those low chances wasn't that they were the default way of finding traps. They were just insurance, a little thing to help your character when something sneaked by you. Finding traps was more about paying attention to descriptions, examining unusual things and avoiding anything that might trigger it. Heck, sometimes you didn't even need to be a thief to do it. Similarly, combat and exploration had less well developed rules (specially old D&D) as you were supposed to come up with smart application of your skills, environment and weapons.

So, obviously, as Brother None mentioned, a direct adaption of 2e isn't such a hot idea for a computer game. You would need to at least change stuff around. But what 2e does provide is lots of little hints as to how implement your game. Look at it like this, 3e and 4e focus on "tactical" thinking, stuff like "what are the best actions for me in the short term? What about the long term? How do I arrange my moves so I win this combat?". They are good, I think, systems (or at least starting points) if you want to make a game with this kind of gameplay. The older games, however, have some thing more like "adventure" gameplay. That is not to say you had a railroaded plot or puzzles that had to be solved in a specific way, like in many adventure games. But they were about creative problem solving, finding a way to use everything that is in the game to get what you want. They were all about Gordian Knot stuff, where to win you needed to think outside the box.

So, to foster this type of game, what the older editions provided were lots of hooks in the spells, items, skills, class descriptions or what not that could be fleshed out during play, both to challenge the characters and to provide them with ammo to face these challenges. While 1e took a much more well defined approach, it still had many hooks in there, but better yet, it showed many ways one could build on the hooks provided by the original game.The table about adjustments of weapons against ACs is an (often unused) example of this. The fire ball that grew until it filled its whole volume if constrained by the roof or the ground of the dungeon is another.

So, my point after this whole lot of text is that since 2e was more grounded in this "adventure like" gameplay (even if less than some of the previous editions), its hooks would be useful in the design of a more adventure like game as Torment was. Rather than having a tactical combat lie TOEE, for example, I think a simpler combat system, which allowed you instead to use different, unique actions on each combat, would fit the game better. Rather than putting traps that require different skills to disarm, using them as actual puzzles that can be interacted with different skills in different ways would be more in tune with that kind of game. And so on.

 

[Havoc]

You think MCA is open to ideas? For example somebody sending him some?

 

[Brother None]

You think MCA is open to ideas? For example somebody sending him some?

Sure. He is usually very welcoming of any fan feedback and ideas.

 

[deus101]

Some fukken norwegian internet tabloid says sequel...WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON?!

 

[deuxhero]

The way I see it, removing DnD from any game would result in a better one.

Temple of Elemental Evil/Knights of the Chalice.

 

[OSK]

MCA kinda did PS:T spiritual successor already - with MotB. I don't know how you can be closer to Planescape: Torment than this without becoming a direct sequel.

I was under the impression that story of MotB was mostly the work of George Ziets.