And the latter attitude is almost certainly disrespectful.
Doesnt seem like that to me. O_o
Focusing on the magic items example, Larian introducing this whole slew of homebrew magic items and neglecting to include more of the classic, familiar ones does feel like them dismissing those items.
I mean ... it once again dont to me, since i have no personal feelings for them i gues.
But i gues i can understand the feeling ... even tho it still fells like people being mad for not getting their favorite toy.
On the other hand why would they?
I mean yes we all just play the game and try to enjoy it.
But the main purpose of Early Acess is still testing ... why would they need to test if people like to get famous, favourite and years tested items?
I could understand people mentioning that they ALSO want some classical rewards, since they are used to them. That would seem like healthy approach.
But topics like this sometimes starts to feel more like holy crusade against anything that dont have WotC sticker placed on its forehead.
It's another instance of them opting to start with trying to make their own approach work rather than trying to build off of what D&D 5e already provides.
This makes sence to me ...
This game will carry their name, if i would make something like that i would also want it to me as close to my vision as possible. :-/[/quote]
So with point 1, I think it's disrespectful when you're consciously choosing to use the D&D system and setting for your game as opposed to something you create yourself. If you think your vision of an IP is superior, that's fine and you may well be right, but if you think that, at every turn, your choices are better, then build something from the ground up, rather than taking something that a lot of people love as-is and impose your vision upon that. Even if your approach is actually better, it's kind of bad form to ask to join in on something like this and then toss out all the stuff you don't like and replace it with your own stuff. It's not even like they're advertising a new, better approach to D&D or anything like that.
With point 2 about why to test favorite, years-tested items, have they been tested for a video game? Larian themselves have said that some things won't translate well into a game and they're 100% right about that. Some things that work great in tabletop will feel weird or even bad in a video game. Maybe some of that stuff is a no-brainer as to how it would work in a video game, but I'd be surprised if they were so confident that they felt no need to test any of that stuff. And if there was stuff they felt needed testing, why not introduce it now alongside their new stuff.
And to your final point about their vision, this is a beloved IP that a huge amount of people still play and enjoy every day. They shouldn't be trying to bring it as close to their vision as possible,they should be trying to meld the original vision of both the series and the current 5e system with their own vision so that each one brings out the best in the other. Nobody is making them do this game. If they were concerned with Baldur's Gate and 5e being a hindrance to their name and reputation, they shouldn't have attatched it to their name in the first place. If they thought the baseline product required loads of heavy lifting to improve upon, they should have just made a game with its own IP. It's like a group that's playing D&D, but are homebrewing so many systems and changing so many things that after a point, it becomes clear that 5e isn't giving them the experience they want and they're better off trying a new system.
I think superhero comic books are a good example here. Superheroes have a core identity, but they've passed through many, many creative visions over their existence. Every writer for say, Superman, will come with their own vision for what Superman should be, but if their vision diverges too much from the core of Superman's character, then the story you get as a result isn't going to be well-recieved. If you're going to write a version of Superman that's too radically different, if you have to drastically change him to make the story work, then it gets to a point where the audience has to ask "why aren't you just creating a whole new character?" You're not trying to write a good story for Superman, you're trying to write your own story and using Superman as a vehicle to do so. And as a result, your story, which may have been genuinely great, is going to be viewed in a poorer light because it's a bad Superman story, because it fails to meet the expectations of what people expect of a Superman story, because it's actually NOT a Superman story.
