[Exit lurk mode]
Since Paizo's announcement of their intention to create the PFRPG, I have been sitting out most of the hysteria that followed the announcement, lead-up, and release of 4th Edition D&D. Having had subs to both Dungeon and Dragon during the Paizo Era, I came to know Paizo as an oustanding company with quality people and, with the advent of the Pathfinder AP's, production values that blow most other companies out of the water. And so I waited to get my own copy of the rule books, hedged my bets, and figured that if I read 4th ed. and it was a total screw-up, I could still throw my full RP support behind Pathfinder.
Well, now I have finally finished reading the books, and... I like the system. It's not the final, perfect evolution of RPG's, as some would like to believe, but neither has any other system I've played been perfect, either. I does, however, put me in a position that, in my experience, has been unusual up until now: I like both 3.5 and 4e D&D.
Now, aside from the self-questioning one might imagine this causing (is this normal? Will extremists on both sides insist I set up a thread to have a flame war with myself? Will Lilith refuse to share her delicious cookies with me?), it also brings up a dilemma that I now bring to you.
Basically, I am by nature a bit of a completist, and I simply do not have the disposable income to fully support both PF and 4e D&D. I had expected to choose one over the other, but now, after being with PF long enough to fall in love with Golarion, and enjoying the 4e system, what's a body to do? Do I cherry-pick products from both lines? Do I go without food for a week each month? I realize that this post could probably have the alternate title of "An Embarassment of Riches", but.... aaargh! I want it all!
So... now what?
Stick with Pathfinder. There, that wasn't so hard, was it?
I guess, if you really want to play 4.0, you can keep it to just the "core" three, and play games using them. I know the completist urge, believe me, but stick with the one you "love" (Golarion and Paizo) and invest as much as you might actually enjoy in the other. It's what I did when I was briefly into Exalted... (I just got the books for the concepts I enjoyed or thought would be most important, and let the rest fall by the wayside.)
Tough choice...but ultimately the decision is yours to decide. I would say set a budget each month, see what products are coming out that month, and pick and choose.
Have some cookies, Readerbreeder. :)
Keep the PF subscription because it is still the best gaming stuff being done in this genre. Convert if necessary. Play whichever system(s) you enjoy.
|
I notice you're a Pathfinder Charter Subscriber, so you're already receiving Paizo's superb adventure paths. If you're a GM, then it really doesn't get much better than this!
If you're a GM, then I'd recommend keeping your Pathfinder subscription as a minimum*, then picking other products from either side that enahnce your game enjoyment as your budget permits - maybe GMing Pathfinder, but playing 4E?
*Reminds me when I took a break from work for 2 years and returned to full-time study. I could no longer afford a steady supply of WotC supplements. But the ONE thing (okay, two) that I didn't give up on were Dragon and Dungeon magazines. These gave me a monthly supply of gamer goodness that kept me connected to my hobby, even though I was taking a financial break. If similar circumstances hit me again, I know in a heartbeat I'd cancel all my gamer purchases, EXCEPT my adventure path subscription!
Thanks for the commisseration and advice. I will likely end up playing in both systems -- obviously, there's nothing to stop me from doing that. I will most definitely keep at least the Pathfinder sub -- who knew that when the Paizo brass said that Pathfinder would allow them to tell the stories they wanted to tell, that the stories would be so wickedly cool?
As much as it pains me, eventually I will likely be forced into the position of doing as Lilith suggested -- being realistic about a budget, and making some tough choices.
4e looks like a good system, but obviously not enough time has passed to generate much fluff to go with it (I have never played in FR and cannot speak to the changes there, and have been trying to ignore the prognosticators of doom proclaiming the crapworthiness of whatever WotC has not yet produced for the pseudo-setting they have set up for the new edition). Maybe for the time being, I can raid Paizo for their outstanding fluff pieces, and pick up the developing nuts-and-bolts for 4e.
Has anyone ever broached the blasphemous (to some, I am sure) idea of porting PF material to 4e? I'm sure it wouldn't be easy -- there was alot of sacred hamburger between the pages of the new ruleset -- but I think the return in story depth would be worthwhile.
I think the opinions and feelings of your gaming group would strongly help with this decision also.
As for the money, work more OT. Paizo's worth it. :)
Have no fear, Pax, I fully plan to support Paizo to the best of my ability. The question is how much of a finite gaming-dollar-pie can I give to anyone else?
You're dead on about Paizo's CS department, though. In my experience, I have never had a complaint myself, neither have I heard of anyone else who has. I dare say that's nigh-on unique for a company, gaming or otherwise. It's also part of the reason I'm having such a schizoid reaction to 4e right now. Well done, Paizo!
Has anyone ever broached the blasphemous (to some, I am sure) idea of porting PF material to 4e? I'm sure it wouldn't be easy -- there was alot of sacred hamburger between the pages of the new ruleset -- but I think the return in story depth would be worthwhile.
My group switched to 4e for the 5th module of Rise of the Runelords. With a few monster mods/changes it has worked quite well so far. Our end of the 4th module was a little bigger than written. (Of course Ive also added in a good deal of AOW as well). If you do want to do it you'll need to change/invent some magic items for 4e. Either way the story and detail is what really brought me to Paizo, and keeps me here.
Here is my $.02.
You say you feel compelled to have a complete collection. Paizo has proved to me that they produce top notch products every time. Every single product I've bought from them has met or exceeded my expectations. Paizo's batting average for me is about .999
Wizards of the coast has a history of producing a genuine mixed bag. Some of their products are great, some of them... not so much. If their historical average were something over 75% this probably wouldn't be a big deal but my experience is that their batting average is somewhere below .500
Regardless of how good the initial release of 4e is it is going to take at least a year or two of decent releases to convince me that their quality is up to the standard set by Paizo.
If I'm going to commit to buying everything from a company... I don't want to get $.50 out of every $1 I spend. My money is on Paizo.
Your personal experience with Wizards may be different from mine... I just don't have faith in the ability of WotC to produce consistent quality product over an extended period of time.
Keep the PF subscription because it is still the best gaming stuff being done in this genre. Convert if necessary. Play whichever system(s) you enjoy.
Couldn't agree more. If you prefer 4E to PFRPG/3.5, convert over the setting to 4E.
Play the setting you love with your preferred system. It may mean more work for you but, that's the trade off.
I think as a test run, I'll try DM'ing RotRL with 4e rules -- you're right, McCoy, it will be some work, but worth every bit of effort. Pathfinder adventures (that I have seen so far)and AP's are some of the best gaming material that I have seen -- ever.
If 4e turns out to be clunkier that it seems, I can go PF 100%. If it smooths combat as it claims to (one of the main attractions for me and my game group -- when you only get together once a month, it's nice to get through more than two combats in a full evening. Elegant combat rules are rare, IME), then I suppose I will get started throwing people's chocolate and peanut butter together. PF AP's, adventures and fluff, 4e system.
By the way, Lilith -- *mmrff* thanks for the cookies. They're my favorite! *mmrff* Great work on the Oerth Journal, too. My first campaign setting was the old Greyhawk boxed set, and I love that there are those still working to keep it as a "live" setting. *mmrff*
There are a good number of people who are working on converting stuff over to 4e in the 4e forum. There is also a wiki out there... I don't have the link handy though.
|
My choice, also from a limited budget, is to buy now the books that might not be as easy to get ahold of later.
I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that if I decide to buy 4E three years from now, I'm going to have no trouble finding a couple at my FLGS, whereas they don't have any Pathfinder stuff *now,* let alone any older stuff.
I know I'm gonna get 4E stuff, eventually, but they are already majorly revamping the skill / skill challenges system, and I'd rather wait for the reprints that have the errata built in.
|
The Pathfinder stuff is defintely the top quality stuff out there right now. The adventure paths are very detailed and lots of fun to read, let alone play. If finances hadn't recently given me a bout of choosiness, I would have kept with it. but my players don't like drow, so there's no way i could afford 6 APs about drow that i'll never use. incedently, that remark about converting the APs to 4e if you switch over is probably your best bet. Depending on how my players feel about subsequent paths, I may end up doing the same, but pathfinder to 3.5e.
And as Set said above me here, they might not be easy to get ahold of later, so your best bet is to focus on what's available now. if, later you decide to go completely with 4e, then at least you'll have great adventutres to work with. if you go pathfinder and the APs aren't available anymore, then that would kinda suck.
I don't understand what all this talk is about not having enough money. every time i seem low on funds, i just sell the organs of some innocent folk and if i'm really hard up that month, i just send a swarm of undead into a local town to loot and plunder....oh and pillage.(which there needs to be more of, i might add. there is a serious lack of pillaging going on in today's society.)
Dennis, thanks for the redirect, I'll go check out the 4e forums in a bit.
Set and Kessukoofah, you make a good point about possible iffy availability of some of the PF stuff later. I've run into that problem before. Something to take into account when making choices.
Monkeygod, it seems that you've got quite a racket going, but I think of myself as Neutral Good most of the time, so selling the organs of innocents is not really an option. Now if you get a line on stealing from the greedy rich to give to the deserving poor, and maybe taking a little cut on the side, I'll give it a listen... :)
Oftentimes when consumers are faced with a two product dillema, they look to the character and integrity of the company and support the one that provides the best customer care.
I trust you're able to take it from here...
See, this is one thing that should be eliminated from all of these kinds of discussions. Once we go from discussing the merits of a game system, or a setting, to calling into question the motives and moral character of individuals in companies, the discussion has gone too far.
For that is certainly what is implied here. Companies, being at best legal persons, and certainly having no consistent goals other than, perhaps, "making good profits", have no character or integrity. Companies are made up of individuals, just as societies are, so it makes little sense to talk of a company's "character and integrity."
What we are left with, then, is a comparison of the character and integrity of individuals making decisions for companies. It is very clear what you have implied, but considering that most of us a) have little or no knowledge of the character and integrity of the individuals involved and b) have little reason to judge any of the individuals involved in the decision making of the companies at issue here, these criteria seem irrelevant.
Moreover, this kind of subtle disparaging of individuals at different companies is wrong from what we know. We have no reason to believe that Eric Mona secretly hates puppies, or that Mike Mearls drowns kittens. We do have reason to believe, for all of the individuals involved, that they like gaming, want gaming to succeed and prosper overall, and want their game products in particular to excel (sell?)
You may disagree with the way that individuals in a company take a game; you may disagree with the way that individuals choose to stick with the familiar and tested, or try out the new and unfamiliar; you may prefer slightly more simulationist, narrativist, or gamist styles of game; you may prefer that games and worlds are consistent with familiar tropes, themes, characters, and lands, or not; but whatever you decide about these issues, describing those who take gaming in a direction you don't like or prefer, even a direction you find foolish or dull, as lacking character and/or integrity because of those decisions, tells more about your character than theirs.
No one is immoral or vile for making business decisions about a game, for profit. Particularly in this case, where all of the individuals involved would probably be doing this game design in this way even if they weren't paid for it; it just so happens that they are, so profit tells as part of the equation in both cases. Let's tone down the accusations about people's characters, and discuss the games as games; even though they may be described as "Edition Wars", these discussions have never approached that level of moral significance. In fact, it is best if we excise discussions of ethics from this issue entirely; at best, it is an erroneous distraction, and at worst, it shows that you are willing to judge an individual's character by how he or she designed a game.
I hope you're able to take it from here ...
|
|
Oftentimes when consumers are faced with a two product dillema, they look to the character and integrity of the company and support the one that provides the best customer care.
I trust you're able to take it from here...
See, this is one thing that should be eliminated from all of these kinds of discussions. Once we go from discussing the merits of a game system, or a setting, to calling into question the motives and moral character of individuals in companies, the discussion has gone too far.
For that is certainly what is implied here. Companies, being at best legal persons, and certainly having no consistent goals other than, perhaps, "making good profits", have no character or integrity. Companies are made up of individuals, just as societies are, so it makes little sense to talk of a company's "character and integrity."
I would disagree, and I think several people in this thread will also. Despite not having any fleshy bits, companies still do have character and either have or lack integrity. And that doesn't have very much to do with the run-of-the-mill peon working for them, either. The run-of-the-mill peons might be great folks, but the company they work for might have different priorities, goals, mission statement, and methods than those employees do individually. All of those things together go to make up the "character and integrity of the company." For a couple of analogs... in Gazetteer books, countries are given an alignment. How is that possible? It's an amalgamated impression gleaned from the government structure, the education level, the alliances, etc of the nation. Obviously a country - a legal geographic and political designation - can't have a personality or an alignment, but we feel free to put this kind of thing in a Gazetteer. In a similar way, we can say that "Wal-Mart is an evil megacorp." Why? They benefit from near-slave-labour in third-world countries so they can sell crap to (relatively speaking) rich Americans and Canadians. The people who work for Wal-Mart aren't evil. Most of them that I've seen and talked with are very pleasant folks. I still avoid Wal-Mart like it spreads the plague, though. That's what people mean by "character and integrity" when they speak of companies. You are the one who proceeded to trickle that down to the individuals who are employed at a company.
NOTE: I don't mean peon to be an insult. Some of my best friends are peons! ;)
[Exit lurk mode]
Since Paizo's announcement of their intention to create the PFRPG, I have been sitting out most of the hysteria that followed the announcement, lead-up, and release of 4th Edition D&D. Having had subs to both Dungeon and Dragon during the Paizo Era, I came to know Paizo as an oustanding company with quality people and, with the advent of the Pathfinder AP's, production values that blow most other companies out of the water. And so I waited to get my own copy of the rule books, hedged my bets, and figured that if I read 4th ed. and it was a total screw-up, I could still throw my full RP support behind Pathfinder.
Well, now I have finally finished reading the books, and... I like the system. It's not the final, perfect evolution of RPG's, as some would like to believe, but neither has any other system I've played been perfect, either. I does, however, put me in a position that, in my experience, has been unusual up until now: I like both 3.5 and 4e D&D.
Now, aside from the self-questioning one might imagine this causing (is this normal? Will extremists on both sides insist I set up a thread to have a flame war with myself? Will Lilith refuse to share her delicious cookies with me?), it also brings up a dilemma that I now bring to you.
Basically, I am by nature a bit of a completist, and I simply do not have the disposable income to fully support both PF and 4e D&D. I had expected to choose one over the other, but now, after being with PF long enough to fall in love with Golarion, and enjoying the 4e system, what's a body to do? Do I cherry-pick products from both lines? Do I go without food for a week each month? I realize that this post could probably have the alternate title of "An Embarassment of Riches", but.... aaargh! I want it all!
So... now what?
Keep in mind Paizo will most likely be releasing less supplements than 4th ed due to backwards compatibility. I personally still use my 15-20 3.5 books because conversion is so simple.
So if it's an issue of money for you I would go with Pathfinder.
Plus Paizo/Pathfinder is still young. As good as they are now they will most likely get even better.
Has anyone ever broached the blasphemous (to some, I am sure) idea of porting PF material to 4e? I'm sure it wouldn't be easy -- there was alot of sacred hamburger between the pages of the new ruleset -- but I think the return in story depth would be worthwhile.
I have done the opposite and converted many 4th ed Feats into Paizo.
They work REALLY well so far.
Original Poster:
As one completist to another, I have to wonder which of these two games (equal in quality to my mind) better serves your interests? If money is the decisive factor, you should note that Pathfinder RPG is being billed as a complete rule set, one giant book with everything you should need. 4e is taking a "subscription" approach to the rules, not even releasing some of the "classic" D&D classes in the first go. You're going to end up with a larger core rules collection with 4e.
With Pathfinder, I expect that their expansions will mainly be in support of their APs. It is therefore unlikely to envision them adding new core classes or the like. It should be much easier to keep up with.
I very much like the idea of getting my new material through the lens of a beloved setting, rather than in arbitrary chunks. Plus the PRPG can be predicted to have a slightly slower release schedule, which is a boon to my light wallet.
Honestly, moneywise, I think you'll spend less and get more in the long run if you stick with Paizo.
How many PHBs do you want to buy (because are we talking 2 or 3 now)? Because if there's going to be X number of PHBs how many Monster Manuals are you going to be forced to buy just to get 4E versions of the monsters you have now?
Plus, with PFRPG you can keep using the stuff you've got now.
And to be perfectly honest, you can trust Paizo to: A) build better monsters, B) make more balanced spells, C) write better adventures by far, D) actually listen and even respond when you ask them questions or share your thoughts, and E) have you noticed they're letting us help them make our game better?
Paizo to me stands as an industry leader in terms of innovation and creativity. And they're gamers. Pretty much all of them. They love what they do. We love them because of that.
I would disagree, and I think several people in this thread will also. Despite not having any fleshy bits, companies still do have character and either have or lack integrity. And that doesn't have very much to do with the run-of-the-mill peon working for them, either. The run-of-the-mill peons might be great folks, but the company they work for might have different priorities, goals, mission statement, and methods than those employees do individually. All of those things together go to make up the "character and integrity of the company." For a couple of analogs... in Gazetteer books, countries are given an alignment. How is that possible? It's an amalgamated impression gleaned from the government structure, the education level, the alliances, etc of the nation. Obviously a country - a legal geographic and political designation - can't have a personality or an alignment, but we feel free to put this kind of thing in a Gazetteer. In a similar way, we can say that "Wal-Mart is an evil megacorp." Why? They benefit from near-slave-labour in third-world countries so they can sell crap to (relatively speaking) rich...
I agree with some of what you said here, but my points still stand, in large part.
As far as peons in companies go, you are exactly right. A company may have different goals from its peons (if by peons you mean "company workers who have little or no say in the company's direction and policies"), and thus a criticism of a company is not implicitly a criticism of the mail-room guy. Here, you're right.
With the rest, however ...
We may find it a useful shorthand to give nations alignments in gazetteers, but I think you must admit that such a designation is very ambiguous; it is a merely useful fiction, in the way that calling Saudi Arabia a muslim country is just a somewhat useful fiction. The description, when we get into the details, is just too fraught with ambiguity. In calling Saudi Arabia a muslim country, do we mean that only muslims live there? That the country is governed by muslims? That the country is governed by a ideologically muslim constitution and laws?
But in any case, what we do in a gazetteer is useful for a game; what I am talking about is very different. I will use your Wal-Mart example, because it is relevant. When we say "Wal-Mart is an evil megacorp" we may, superficially, be making a comment about the company. However, a little digging creates the same ambiguities as I mentioned above. Do we mean that the company's policies are morally abhorrent? That the company practices business in a way that is hypocritical or against its own moral code? What can we make of such questions?
The answer, though, leads back to the point I made originally. If we are to criticize Wal-Mart by calling it an evil megacorp, it is impossible to avoid marking employees of said company as evil themselves. The company is not a robot or an evil intelligence itself; its decision makers (in this case, Satan) are responsible for the company's acts because they decide the directions and actions of the company. I agree, peons are exempt. But when I say Wal-Mart is evil, I am not really criticizing Wal-Mart, or if I am, I am not only criticising Wal-Mart; I am criticizing the characters of those who make decisions for the company.
That was a long way around, but we come finally to my point, which is that by criticising WOTC or Paizo as "lacking integrity", we are of necessity making the same claim against the individual decision makers in the companies, that is, those who have made the decisions we believe lack integrity. And given that in the case of Paizo, which seems to be a small group of happy gamers who happen to be making money at it, these criticims, of necessity, would rest with them. Even for WOTC, which, despite its market share, is still relatively small, and more importantly, has its business decisions made by those who are actively involved in the design of its games, such criticisms of character and integrity draw the same implications. Such implications are themselves reprehensible. I find it hard to even imagine a game design decision that could be considered immoral; even if we allow for the possibility, there are certainly no decisions made by gaming companies, that I know of, regarding the direction of their games that would ever justify a condemnation of the integrity and character of the individuals making those decisions. Such characterizations are slander, or libel, depending, and should be, as I argued before, entirely excised from these gaming debates.
|
Just wanted to let you know that you're not alone in the boat of liking both editions.
That said, I have little money myself -- I did buy the core 4E books, and if pathfinder looks good (I just found out about it yesterday), I may buy the core book as a show of support (subscribing is unfortunately unlikely, however, as I doubt I'll be running pathfinder in the forseeable future. For now I'm running Planescape under 3.5e, and all the PCs are using noncore classes and races, so... Not much for me there. That said, I know a friend who's going to be running her first 3.5 campaign after the current game we're playing in (A 3.5/D20 Past hybrid) comes to a close, and I'm certainly going to point her towards Pathfinder as an alternative.
(By the way, I said I like 4 and 3.5, as for Pathfinder? I've looked over Alpha 3 a bit, and I like more than I dislike -- I like the direction it's going but dislike some of the simplifications (power attack and combat expertise, for instance). Looks like I got into pathfinder at just the right time -- I eagerly await tomorrow's release (which I found out about a few hours ago) to see what the beta holds.
Looks like I got into pathfinder at just the right time -- I eagerly await tomorrow's release (which I found out about a few hours ago) to see what the beta holds.
Welcome on board!