You must have been really horrified when 3rd edition came out.

Perhaps you'd like to share your pain with people who care at a site like Dragonsfoot

But maybe you took the wrong turn somewhere? This isn't gleemax you know.

Bluenose wrote:

You must have been really horrified when 3rd edition came out.

Didn't. Hated 2e.

Bluenose wrote:

Perhaps you'd like to share your pain with people who care at a site like Dragonsfoot

Nah. I'll stay right here. This is my site. Paizo.com, for everything Paizo, especially Pathfinder.

But maybe you took the wrong turn somewhere? This isn't gleemax you know.

KaeYoss wrote:

Bluenose wrote:

You must have been really horrified when 3rd edition came out.

Didn't. Hated 2e.

I see this said by a lot by people.

What it implies for 3rd edition as a game in the tradition of earlier versions of D&D/AD&D is something few of them want to consider.

Oh, and I forgot: With apprentice rules (and later Gestalt, if you like your power level to be high), you were able to play fighter/mages (or virtually every combo you liked) from level 1.

Having been dming 4E for over a year now, I haven't felt that I wasn't able to tell the same stories. I ran second darkness AP entirely using 4E and I didn't feel like the story really changed. I didn't find it hard to capture the feel I was after or stay as faithful as I wanted to the adventures- if I had I would have used pathfinder instead.

Anyhow, I've seen people post that sort of comment on occasion, and I don't really understand it because I just don't think it's really the case. When people make that particular comment, it suggests to me that they haven't actually played the game (other than a couple sessions here and there- maybe at a convention or demo). I'm pretty sure you fall in that category. I have a feeling that if you'd actually played the game for any real time you probably wouldn't say that. However, I can certainly understand you not being interested in 4E and not bothering to invest any time in 4E.

I've just started running 4e, and I have to say that my opinion of it raised by a great deal after I stopped using any WOTC authored adventures. Those are truly horrendous. Once I started making my own, it does pretty much exactly what I want it to do. Powers are still taking a bit to get used to, but it's growing on me.

It was still the same game. The rules changed, but you could still tell the same stories with it.

I would agree that 2e and 3e were more similar to each other than 3e and 4e, but the place you draw your arbitrary line of what makes it the "same game" is neither universal nor capable of any type of objective determination.

Or, to put it another way, you don't like it. That's clear. Your reasons for not liking it may help you sleep at night, but they are by no means persuasive or based on facts which other people can agree upon.

I think there are bits and pieces of them that could be worth using, but I doubt I could run one as written from start to finish. Actually, that's not entirely true, I did run Last Breaths of Ashenport from the online dungeon and it was pretty good.

I've just started running 4e, and I have to say that my opinion of it raised by a great deal after I stopped using any WOTC authored adventures. Those are truly horrendous. Once I started making my own, it does pretty much exactly what I want it to do. Powers are still taking a bit to get used to, but it's growing on me.

It was still the same game. The rules changed, but you could still tell the same stories with it.

KaeYoss wrote:

It was still the same game. The rules changed, but you could still tell the same stories with it.

I know Paizo said this, but it's crap, frankly. I can, and am, telling exactly whatever story I want in my campaigns with no constriction due to gaming system. The "can't tell the same stories" was a throw-away remark by James Jacobs with very little to back it up, based on an earlier version of the game (at a point when 3e had a decade behind it), and my experience suggests otherwise. The only constraint in converting Paizo adventures to 4e is time and inclination.

KaeYoss wrote:

It was still the same game. The rules changed, but you could still tell the same stories with it.

I know Paizo said this, but it's crap, frankly. I can, and am, telling exactly whatever story I want in my campaigns with no constriction due to gaming system. The "can't tell the same stories" was a throw-away remark by James Jacobs with very little to back it up, based on an earlier version of the game (at a point when 3e had a decade behind it), and my experience suggests otherwise. The only constraint in converting Paizo adventures to 4e is time and inclination.

Yeah, I agree. But I think it was more of a business decision than really being about the system as such. The whole GSL fiasco was going on at the time and Paizo had to make a decision. That's fair enough. What I don't really agree with is the suggestion that 4e makes it impossible to do a Paizo-style AP.

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

It was still the same game. The rules changed, but you could still tell the same stories with it.

I know Paizo said this, but it's crap, frankly. I can, and am, telling exactly whatever story I want in my campaigns with no constriction due to gaming system. The "can't tell the same stories" was a throw-away remark by James Jacobs with very little to back it up, based on an earlier version of the game (at a point when 3e had a decade behind it), and my experience suggests otherwise. The only constraint in converting Paizo adventures to 4e is time and inclination.

To be fair at the time it was right since Drow at the time of him writing it were not open sourced under the GSL (Admittedly it might have changed now) making it somewhat difficult to do a story were the main antagonists are drow.

Are you sure this is correct? Drow are definitely part of the GSL now, and I don't recall ever hearing that they weren't, or that they were inserted later. It's possible I've missed that, but I don't know why they would have specifically removed and then reinserted them.

This page places Drow as being not in the 4e SRD.

The response to the GSL on this site included another post stating that Drow were on the off limits list.

Probably should not read beyond linked posts to avoid additional commentary.

I can't find a post stating that they were added easily, possibly because they noted issues with not including a monster that was already in a previous SRD.

Scott Betts wrote:

Are you sure this is correct? Drow are definitely part of the GSL now, and I don't recall ever hearing that they weren't, or that they were inserted later. It's possible I've missed that, but I don't know why they would have specifically removed and then reinserted them.

I recall comments to the effect that it was odd that "Drow Poison" was in the GSL (when it came out), but the Drow themselves were not in the GSL, I do not recall anyone coming right back at them saying that they were wrong. It seems quite likely they were released later on in some update (can't seem to find when though)

This page places Drow as being not in the 4e SRD.

The response to the GSL on this site included another post stating that Drow were on the off limits list.

Probably should not read beyond linked posts to avoid additional commentary.

I can't find a post stating that they were added easily, possibly because they noted issues with not including a monster that was already in a previous SRD.

I'm glad they reversed that particular policy, though.

KaeYoss wrote:

It was still the same game. The rules changed, but you could still tell the same stories with it.

Not according to the people who refused to switch from 2e. They said 3e was a power-gamers wet dream, designed only for munchkins, designed to appeal to the Pokemon crowd, lowest common denominator, and Monty Haul gamers.

KaeYoss wrote:

It was still the same game. The rules changed, but you could still tell the same stories with it.

I know Paizo said this, but it's crap, frankly. I can, and am, telling exactly whatever story I want in my campaigns with no constriction due to gaming system. The "can't tell the same stories" was a throw-away remark by James Jacobs with very little to back it up, based on an earlier version of the game (at a point when 3e had a decade behind it), and my experience suggests otherwise. The only constraint in converting Paizo adventures to 4e is time and inclination.

There are virtually no Wishes on-screen - in fact, having read the AP, I can't think of any. So you could easily turn it into a ritual. I see no problem with it at all. What changes would you need to make?

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

KaeYoss wrote:

It was still the same game. The rules changed, but you could still tell the same stories with it.

I know Paizo said this, but it's crap, frankly. I can, and am, telling exactly whatever story I want in my campaigns with no constriction due to gaming system. The "can't tell the same stories" was a throw-away remark by James Jacobs with very little to back it up, based on an earlier version of the game (at a point when 3e had a decade behind it), and my experience suggests otherwise. The only constraint in converting Paizo adventures to 4e is time and inclination.

How would you tell the Legacy of Fire AP storyline without Wish magics? If you were to turn all the Wish magics into rituals it seems you would need some fairly material changes to portions of that AP.

How would you tell the Legacy of Fire AP storyline without Wish magics? If you were to turn all the Wish magics into rituals it seems you would need some fairly material changes to portions of that AP.

Is the wish a game piece? Or is it an element of the story?

In reality we only need to worry about the mechanics of Wish if its a game piece. That is to say that its something that your players will be able to get their hands on and use as they see fit. In this case its very important to create mechanics and the purpose of those mechanics will be set limitations on the Wish - make it so that the playesr can't use the wish to break your game.

On the other hand if the wish(es) are just elements of the story then you don't have to worry about whether or not your players are going to break your game using wishes. In this case you can leave the specifics detailed and presume that wishes operate more or less like our view of mythological wishes do - essentially they grant whatever is asked for - no need to spell out their limitations because your players don't have any. Hence if the NPCs are using wishes they do whatever it is the DM needs them to do in order to further the story.

In other words from a fantasy game perspective a wish is something that gives the players anything they want within some kind of a box of limitations. On the other hand if the Wish is not used by the players...well then it just does anything the DM wants via fiat.

KaeYoss wrote:

Davi The Eccentric wrote:

The reason why people end up belittling the problem in these threads is because we think, maybe if we're lucky, we get people to laugh hard enough this won't end up devolving into a flame war of some sort. Of course, it always does.

That's like dousing flames with oil.

Hey, I never said it was effective.

Ah, Edition Wars; how I've missed you. Ok, not really.

Liking (or not liking) 4E is purely subjective, and I'm fine with that. The problem arises when people think their opinion that 4E "isn't D&D*," or is "obviously inferior," or "limits roleplaying" is an objective manner.

I happen to believe WotC has made some real bone-headed moves over the last eighteen months, but I continue to think 4E is a very well-done system, and one that I prefer to 3.5/Pathfinder. But I'm aware that my position is an opinion. ;-)

*Of course 4E literally IS D&D, but I don't think that is what is meant by this remark.

...What I don't really agree with is the suggestion that 4e makes it impossible to do a Paizo-style AP.

Quite.

Quite.

If you think about it, conversion isn't really required. If you read the adventure get the "story" and build a native 4e (for example) version of "the story". The stats and stuff are mechanics NOT story after all.

Not to say that Scott hasn't set the bar for 3e --> 4e conversions.

S.

I think there are bits and pieces of them that could be worth using, but I doubt I could run one as written from start to finish. Actually, that's not entirely true, I did run Last Breaths of Ashenport from the online dungeon and it was pretty good.

Whew,
Well I think the "Can't tell the same stories" is old hat. Hell I can sit around a table and play a fantasy adventure with nearly any ruleset, it aint got to be anything WotC built.

Runequest,Palladium,Earthdawn,etc,etc, any of these can be adapted to any adventure setting.

It justs takes a little work and some rehashing.

I dont like the direction of 4e nor did I like the direction of 2e, big whoop.

Hasnt stopped me from playing either system.

I hate the D6 system and that crap fest of a system by White Wolf.

I think the Old Marvel RPG was a great way of telling supers stories, far better in my mind than the current giant, M&M. Though I do not own a single copy of the Old Marvel RPG I own quite alot of M&M.

I love the old Star Frontiers rule set.

I own all the 1e AD&D books, and supplement them with work from Dragonsfoot.

Hell know what I like RPG's. Doesnt really matter alot to me what rules are used Just how well a story is told.

Understanding that I will say Runequest, Palladium or Earthdawn do not feel like D&D to me, but could be reworked to capture that feel. Its the way I feel about the Current 4e system.

If I choose to run a 4e game dont expect me to allow you to run a Dragonborn. Dont feel like D&D to me, unless we jump into some Dragonlance I suppose.

Eric