The frustrating thing for me, of course, is that if they CAN do a 4E Eberron without doing a huge world reset... that just sort of makes the "blowing up the Forgotten Realms" stunt all the more aggravating and disappointing to me.What's frustrating is the amount of misinformation that's rampant on the net about the 4E Realms. "Blowing up the Forgotten Realms" had far more to do with fixing a laundry list of problems within the setting than shoehorning it into the new system. The only major change needed for system compatibility was the way magic worked. It boggles my mind that some would assume WotC just steamrolled willy-nilly through the Realms just to update the magic system.
I think you are understating the required changes for the 4e Realms beyond magic, specifically the introduction of the new races and the new cosmology. But even if it was just the one change to magic required, that's an enormous change for the Realms by itself since a specific depiction of magic (Mystra, the Weave, etc) lay at the setting's heart.
I strongly disagree that it forces characters actions or limits roleplaying.
I think we also need to think about how a DM approaches the game. My DM-fu is very much a relaxed, anything-a-player-wants-to-do-we'll-figure-out-a-way-to-adjudicate-it style. This means I have to set aside rules every now and then.
If I were playing 4E, I wouldn't play any differently. My doubtfulness is less in the way it will actually play, because different DMs would make the game feel VERY different, but in the way I see a certain style being encouraged.
I can also see that in the hands of a good DM, 4E is a viable game for what it is. I just don't believe that it is any less "gamist" than 3E.
Rich Baker has specifically said that the main issue was the kitchen sink approach to the Realms in the recent past. Yes, people hated Mystra and her Chosen. But the real problem was that the Realms identity had become too diluted with things like Mulhorand (Ancient Egypt), Maztica (Ancient Central and South America), the umpteen billion gods that no one could keep track of, ect. The Realms were so cluttered that DMs were too intimidated to runs campaigns there.
I don't think this statement is accurate at all. It had a lot of source material because the campaign setting had been around for a long time. All you need to run the Realms in the way you want to run it is the Campaign Setting Handbook.
And as for all the other lands, that is EXACTLY the reason I LIKED the Realms. It meant I could run any kind of adventure I wanted. Once I saw Golarion and how much more devoted to this mindset that Pathfinder was going to be, I dove right in.
It would also gain a (very likely larger) set of new subscribers who DO like the way 4th Edition works and are interested in what Paizo can bring to the game.
Probably not. There are a whole lot of people who look at all 3rd Party Product with scorn, no matter how good the quality and will ONLY by stuff made from WOTC.
I would argue that the people attending RPG conventions tend towards the gaming-elitist.
I would argue again that only the "gaming-elitist" would know and or be familiar with the good quality 3PP stuff. The average person who's playing 4E is a WOTC only proponent and sees any other published product as inferior to WOTC's.
The gaming community, and the hobby in general, is not served well by maintaining the "change-is-bad-and-my-game-is-ruined" attitude that seems to be prevalent among a certain crowd of gamers.
So basically, if we don't like 4E and wont support it there's something wrong with us? Look, I've tried 4E. There are things that I like about it and I think it's a well designed game but it's NOT FOR ME. It doesn't FEEL like D&D TO ME. Since I'M the one spending my own money to support the hobby that I like, well you get where I'm going with this.
Thankfully, as with the release of 3rd Edition, gamers do tend to come around once the knee-jerk reactions subside.
Yeah, the difference here being, at lest in my case, I was looking forward to 3E. 4E? Not so much. Still I gave it a shot, I bought the gift set from Amazon. I prepped and ran a game and realized
1) some of the things that I liked about 4E I was already doing in my 3.5 game
2) some of the other things that I liked about 4E easily could BE done in 3.5.
3) I really didn't like the implementation of a few other things in 4E which were the real deal breakers for me.
At my game store here in NYC there are people still wanting to play 3.5. There are more people staying with 3.5 than I think there were with 2E.
Thankfully, as with the release of 3rd Edition, gamers do tend to come around once the knee-jerk reactions subside.
I can't believe you really think this. On the whole, these aren't knee-jerk reactions. D&D in the view of WotC is changing for the benefit of their bottom line. This is not like the change from 2nd Edition to 3rd Edition. The way the game is played is changing, very dramatically.
2nd Edition to 3rd Edition did two main things:
#1 Opened up player options more than any D&D supplement before. This is a good thing in my mind because it gives players the characters they want.
#2 Organized combat mechanics into a more rigid, less specific-fantasy-genre based system. This feature is arguable. Some people liked it a lot, some didn't.
The knee-jerk reactions you're talking about assume that one set of rules is better than the other. It all depends on the way people play the game. There are still A LOT of folks playing 2nd edition and 1st edition.
|
The frustrating thing for me, of course, is that if they CAN do a 4E Eberron without doing a huge world reset... that just sort of makes the "blowing up the Forgotten Realms" stunt all the more aggravating and disappointing to me.What's frustrating is the amount of misinformation that's rampant on the net about the 4E Realms. "Blowing up the Forgotten Realms" had far more to do with fixing a laundry list of problems within the setting than shoehorning it into the new system. The only major change needed for system compatibility was the way magic worked. It boggles my mind that some would assume WotC just steamrolled willy-nilly through the Realms just to update the magic system.
Rich Baker has specifically said that the main issue was the kitchen sink approach to the Realms in the recent past. Yes, people hated Mystra and her Chosen. But the real problem was that the Realms identity had become too diluted with things like Mulhorand (Ancient Egypt), Maztica (Ancient Central and South America), the umpteen billion gods that no one could keep track of, ect. The Realms were so cluttered that DMs were too intimidated to runs campaigns there. If DMs don’t run Realms campaigns then WotC doesn’t sell books. The Spellplague accomplished all of the design team's goals in one fell swoop. It also allowed them to leave iconic places and characters like Waterdeep, the Dalelands, Elminster and Drizzt relatively unchanged. Whether or not the overarching goal of bringing in new fans was achieved remains to be seen.
Well I think they did SOMETHING wrong in there, because no one seems to like the new realms.
Thankfully, as with the release of 3rd Edition, gamers do tend to come around once the knee-jerk reactions subside.
While I am sure 4E is a fun game for some, the arrogant attitude of statements like this continue to drive me away. This statement says that you know my mind better then I do. So while 4E is fun for some, it will not be for me. Period.
The frustrating thing for me, of course, is that if they CAN do a 4E Eberron without doing a huge world reset... that just sort of makes the "blowing up the Forgotten Realms" stunt all the more aggravating and disappointing to me.What's frustrating is the amount of misinformation that's rampant on the net about the 4E Realms. "Blowing up the Forgotten Realms" had far more to do with fixing a laundry list of problems within the setting than shoehorning it into the new system. The only major change needed for system compatibility was the way magic worked. It boggles my mind that some would assume WotC just steamrolled willy-nilly through the Realms just to update the magic system.
Rich Baker has specifically said that the main issue was the kitchen sink approach to the Realms in the recent past. Yes, people hated Mystra and her Chosen. But the real problem was that the Realms identity had become too diluted with things like Mulhorand (Ancient Egypt), Maztica (Ancient Central and South America), the umpteen billion gods that no one could keep track of, ect. The Realms were so cluttered that DMs were too intimidated to runs campaigns there. If DMs don’t run Realms campaigns then WotC doesn’t sell books. The Spellplague accomplished all of the design team's goals in one fell swoop. It also allowed them to leave iconic places and characters like Waterdeep, the Dalelands, Elminster and Drizzt relatively unchanged. Whether or not the overarching goal of bringing in new fans was achieved remains to be seen.
These problems exist more in the imagination of some people (mostly those which do not like the Realms) than in reality - especially the part about the gods is nonsense. The points mentioned above are part of the flair which attracted fans to the Realms and continued to attract new fans until this day. Sadly WotC decided to abandon the fans and cater for the part not interested by destroing the setting and building a new one loosely resembling the FR. So they loose many of their fan base and it is questionable that they can compensate theses losses by newly drawn fans.
|
|
said lots of stuffMost of what Taliesin wrote is pretty spot on too, and a nicely more detailed view of the problems we would have faced if we'd gone with 4th edition.
(Personally, that 4th edition is more gamist and less of a simulation type game is the primary reason I prefer 3rd edition.)
Actually, what Taliesin wrote is far from spot on and is indicative of the ridiculous misconceptions about 4E that are pervasive here.
• The rules do not "make the world harder to visualize as a breathing, living entity". Neithan stated this perfectly. "Not a fault of the book, put the presentation greatly encourages you to see actions as applications of the rules, not rules as a way to represent the actions happening in the world." This is true, and a likely reason that so many people see 4E as "gamist" and unfriendly to storytelling. I assure you that's not the case. I think 4E actually makes storytelling easier, because it allows me to focus my efforts on the story and not on the rules. The core 4E books do exactly what any RPG rules ought to. The take care of the math and accounting for you, so that you can focus your energy on the story. The rules have been simplified to minimize interruptions and keep the attention where it ought to be - on the PCs and they're interactions with the game world. For all that people keep calling 4E gamist, I notice myself consulting rulebooks during the game a lot less now than I did with 3E.
Yeah, but presentation is EVERYTHING, and first impressions are unbelievably important. I personally don't think 4e makes storytelling more easy, because a good GM always finds time to focus on his story no matter what the rules. I also think 4e limits choices, and there is really no way around that. I would think less classes, less prestige classes, and less spells are less options.
Yeah, but presentation is EVERYTHING, and first impressions are unbelievably important. I personally don't think 4e makes storytelling more easy, because a good GM always finds time to focus on his story no matter what the rules. I also think 4e limits choices, and there is really no way around that. I would think less classes, less prestige classes, and less spells are less options.
Not only that, the 3E PHB was presented as all you need to play. Between different feats, multiclassing, PrCs and variant classes, you can made any concept imaginable. 4E by comparison, its basicly understood that there will be more classes to cover a greater range of concepts and all you have to do is wait for Wizards to give them to you. I don't like that attitude.
Personally, that 4th edition is more gamist and less of a simulation type game is the primary reason I prefer 3rd edition.
Thank God! I suspected that you felt this way given the direction that Pathfinder RPG seems to be taking, but I am even happier you stated it explicitly, as I have the exact same problem with the 4th edition (too gamist - not simulationist enough), and your statements allays my fears somewhat that the Pathfinder RPG will succumb to that too.
And also, when you read the rules, it totaly seperates you from the things they are meant to represent. Not a fault of the book, put the presentation greatly encourages you to see actions as applications of the rules, not rules as a way to represent the actions happening in the world.
EXACTLY.
Above that, however, I think it would be good to hilight how convertable a Paizo module/encounter/setting is to 4e rather than suggest it's solely usable by 3.x/Pathfinder. There might have been a lot of active discouragement in different venues about the difficulty of converting from 3e to 4e but it's certainly not impossible. Classic Monsters revisited directly influenced a number of the monster races of my campaign, and by extension regions of the campaign as well.
This hit me with a thought. So Paizo has repeated said they would like to see their fans that are using 4e to post conversions of the products to help other 4e users. But let me get this straight, Paizo believes that your average D&D player is MORE capable of converting a Paizo adventure product to 4e than Paizo's staff would be able to write the story using 4e in the first place?
Also the whole, "We can't tell our stories how we want because we can't have a bard as our BBEG." Ok, first off, that has got to be the first time I have heard anything like that about a BARD. Secondly, this sounds like the player that says, "I want to play a true neutral Paladin." When someone responds, "Why not play a fighter/cleric, maybe take leadership to get an intelligent mount/cohort?" The person responds, "If the class does not have the letters p-a-l-a-d-i-n then it is not a paladin! I want a paladin!" I seriously doubt people as skilled as those that work for Paizo would be incapable of making a good story using the mechanics in 4e, that something like missing a specific monster would make the whole story a toss.
But let me get this straight, Paizo believes that your average D&D player is MORE capable of converting a Paizo adventure product to 4e than Paizo's staff would be able to write the story using 4e in the first place?
Paizo wants to/has to maintain one complete canon for the setting and have it appear seamless for someone inside the campaign setting, if they made the 4E changeover. The Runelords, as they appear in RotRL, cannot exist. They'd need a modified class. But Paizo cannot redefine what 4E calls a wizard. So they cannot do it.
Players, OTOH, do not have to maintain that same seamlessness. They do not have to give the BBEG enchanting or transmuting spells.
|
|
Above that, however, I think it would be good to hilight how convertable a Paizo module/encounter/setting is to 4e rather than suggest it's solely usable by 3.x/Pathfinder. There might have been a lot of active discouragement in different venues about the difficulty of converting from 3e to 4e but it's certainly not impossible. Classic Monsters revisited directly influenced a number of the monster races of my campaign, and by extension regions of the campaign as well.This hit me with a thought. So Paizo has repeated said they would like to see their fans that are using 4e to post conversions of the products to help other 4e users. But let me get this straight, Paizo believes that your average D&D player is MORE capable of converting a Paizo adventure product to 4e than Paizo's staff would be able to write the story using 4e in the first place?
Well I think it is pretty obvious that most of Paizo's fanbase likes 3.5 more than 4e, and writing adventures using 4e would be idiotic from their perspective. This has been stated numerous times in the past, and is one of the key reasons they are not switching. It is not really a question of easinessalthough it is also obvious that peopleat Paizo, who work all day with 3.5 rules, would work with 4e a lot less easily than someone on the boards who plays with the system.
This hit me with a thought. So Paizo has repeated said they would like to see their fans that are using 4e to post conversions of the products to help other 4e users. But let me get this straight, Paizo believes that your average D&D player is MORE capable of converting a Paizo adventure product to 4e than Paizo's staff would be able to write the story using 4e in the first place?
I don't think that's it. Paizo prefers to remain with 3.5/Pathfinder, obviously. As a second best choice they're encouraging fans who like 4E helping other 4E fans with conversions if they want to use Paizo material. Paizo can't make its own conversions of the material to 4E without giving up its 3.5E versions of that product line. They're not willing to do that.
I don't think that's it. Paizo prefers to remain with 3.5/Pathfinder, obviously. As a second best choice they're encouraging fans who like 4E helping other 4E fans with conversions if they want to use Paizo material. Paizo can't make its own conversions of the material to 4E without giving up its 3.5E versions of that product line. They're not willing to do that.
Also, Paizo sees the gaming community as ...omg... a community. They ask their clientele to tell them what they would like in a product before releasing it, they keep lines of communication with their fans open and free, and they understand that some people will be playing 4e and offer them a place to discuss their ideas in a creative manner and even encourage them to do so.
I think *that's* the confidence Paizo has in its fans: a cooperative effort that has been the hallmark of good gamers for years ... even before online forums.
But let me get this straight, Paizo believes that your average D&D player is MORE capable of converting a Paizo adventure product to 4e than Paizo's staff would be able to write the story using 4e in the first place?Paizo wants to/has to maintain one complete canon for the setting and have it appear seamless for someone inside the campaign setting. The Runelords, as they appear in RotRL, cannot exist. They'd need a modified class. But Paizo cannot redefine what 4E calls a wizard. So they cannot do it.
Players, OTOH, do not have to maintain that same seamlessness. They do not have to give the BBEG enchanting or transmuting spells.
Okay, this is like the 5th time I've read this, so I'm finally going to hop into the fray ...
There is absolutely no reason that the Runelords or the BBEG in CotCT or the Bard from Second Darkness cannot exist in 4th edition or would require a new class or any new rules at all. If a PLAYER wanted to play a Runelord or bard, then, yes, the game would require some modification, but NPCs and bad guys don't play by the same rules as 4th edition PCs. (It's one of the things I have to keep saying to my players as we start our new campaign (a conversion of CotCT, by the way, that is going quite nicely, even though it's a Pathfinder adventure in 4th edition).) In order to make a bad guy in 4th edition, you simply follow the rules on creating monsters or NPCs, respectively, and give it whatever powers you want. So, I can easily make up a bard with some inspiration-like effects and a couple spells. I'm pretty sure my NPC bard doesn't need Inspire Competence and skill points in Knowledge (Religion), so why bother statting up an entire bad guy as if he were going to get the same screen time as a PC?
I have completed RotRL (in 3.5) and enjoyed it, but I am positive that I could have had exactly as rewarding an experience with 4th ed (and many fewer headaches, to boot). Karzoug was big and nasty, but I never got to any of his spells below 6th level, so why bother with them? Sure, he's a specialist transmuter, but I doubt my players could tell the difference based on his spell selection (only 1 one of his highest level spells is transmutation). So, in 4th edition, I give him some cool transmutey-style powers, that actually provide way more flavor than meteor swarm or wail of the banshee, and actually tell the story that is there to be told.
In short, I asked the very same question that the OP asked when starting this thread and wasn't happy with the answer then, either. People may have their issues with 4th edition, but it is certainly capable of telling the stories that Paizo is publishing.
O
I have completed RotRL (in 3.5) and enjoyed it, but I am positive that I could have had exactly as rewarding an experience with 4th ed (and many fewer headaches, to boot). Karzoug was big and nasty, but I never got to any of his...
One of the main reasons Paizo cannot do what you suggest is because of the GSL. The SRD for the 4th ed GSL is very specific in what publishers can and cannot use. Please look over the 4th ed SRD. If Paizo steps over the line even a little, they open themselves up to lawsuit.
On the other hand, if the community puts something out, then you're putting it in the public domain and that content does not constrain Paizo at all.
I have completed RotRL (in 3.5) and enjoyed it, but I am positive that I could have had exactly as rewarding an experience with 4th ed (and many fewer headaches, to boot). Karzoug was big and nasty, but I never got to any of his...One of the main reasons Paizo cannot do what you suggest is because of the GSL. The SRD for the 4th ed GSL is very specific in what publishers can and cannot use. Please look over the 4th ed SRD. If Paizo steps over the line even a little, they open themselves up to lawsuit.
On the other hand, if the community puts something out, then you're putting it in the public domain and that content does not constrain Paizo at all.
Yes, yes, I understand why Paizo can't PUBLISH their adventures as 4th ed. adventures. I'm simply stating that there is no inherent element of 4th edition that prevents Pathfinder stories from being told via the 4th edition rules, if you're willing to do the conversion yourself (or steal from one of the other folks with more time than you). But my real beef was with the whole, "There's no bard (specialist wizard) class, so we can't make a bard (specialist wizard) NPC," argument, which is nonsense.
O
This hit me with a thought. So Paizo has repeated said they would like to see their fans that are using 4e to post conversions of the products to help other 4e users. But let me get this straight, Paizo believes that your average D&D player is MORE capable of converting a Paizo adventure product to 4e than Paizo's staff would be able to write the story using 4e in the first place?
As they've made perfectly clear farther up the thread, if they wanted to use 4e as it is now, they'd have to reinvent a whole lot of wheels that are already there in 3.5... like bards, barbarians, druids, and so on. Considering most of what they'd do would be undoubtedly contradicted by official WotC releases, why waste the time?
They have a growing core of 3.5 players coming to them that they can provide service for now. Why wait for WotC to produce an official bard, barbarian, or druid?
I have completed RotRL (in 3.5) and enjoyed it, but I am positive that I could have had exactly as rewarding an experience with 4th ed (and many fewer headaches, to boot). Karzoug was big and nasty, but I never got to any of his...
I disagree. I like both 3.5E and 4E quite a bit, but I find the flavor of the two to differ a great deal. You change the flavor of the mechanics and you necessarily change the "story" you are telling at least to some degree. Flavor is a big part of a story. If you tried to tell the story of The Black Company using the flavor of the Harry Potter world, you'd get a much different story even if you kept all the plot elements the same. As another example, 4E would suck for a low-magic game, imo.
So, no. I don't think you can tell exactly the same story with both 3.5E and 4E. You can keep the plot elements and fluff, but as the story plays out it is playing out differently in its feel depending on which system you use.
I have completed RotRL (in 3.5) and enjoyed it, but I am positive that I could have had exactly as rewarding an experience with 4th ed (and many fewer headaches, to boot). Karzoug was big and nasty, but I never got to any of his...One of the main reasons Paizo cannot do what you suggest is because of the GSL. The SRD for the 4th ed GSL is very specific in what publishers can and cannot use. Please look over the 4th ed SRD. If Paizo steps over the line even a little, they open themselves up to lawsuit.
On the other hand, if the community puts something out, then you're putting it in the public domain and that content does not constrain Paizo at all.
I think you are missing the point. Some are claiming that Paizo could never have been able to pull off a RotRL type story using 4e to begin with. That 4e makes it IMPOSSIBLE to tell those types of stories. Arcesilaus is saying that is bupkus, that those type of stories could still have been told with 4e. It is not the whole taking something that is already written and translating it that is the issue here. It is if it could have been written using the other system to begin with.
Yes, yes, I understand why Paizo can't PUBLISH their adventures as 4th ed. adventures. I'm simply stating that there is no inherent element of 4th edition that prevents Pathfinder stories from being told via the 4th edition rules, if you're willing to do the conversion yourself (or steal from one of the other folks with more time than you). But my real beef was with the whole, "There's no bard (specialist wizard) class, so we can't make a bard (specialist wizard) NPC," argument, which is nonsense.O
But since they're a publisher, then what's the point of being able to tell a particular story... and not publish it?
but it is certainly capable of telling the stories that Paizo is publishing.
Could they tell Hook Mountain with a guarantee that Wizards won't change their mind at a future point in time that it violates their community standards? Should Wizards pull the GSL at any time for any reason, Paizo can't use their setting with the OGL anymore. So what is Paizo to do?
I'd call those dealbreakers.
I have completed RotRL (in 3.5) and enjoyed it, but I am positive that I could have had exactly as rewarding an experience with 4th ed (and many fewer headaches, to boot). Karzoug was big and nasty, but I never got to any of his...
I disagree. I like both 3.5E and 4E quite a bit, but I find the flavor of the two to differ a great deal. You change the flavor of the mechanics and you necessarily change the "story" you are telling at least to some degree. Flavor is a big part of a story. If you tried to tell the story of The Black Company using the flavor of the Harry Potter world, you'd get a much different story even if you kept all the plot elements the same. As another example, 4E would suck for a low-magic game, imo.
So, no. I don't think you can tell exactly the same story with both 3.5E and 4E. You can keep the plot elements and fluff, but as the story plays out it is playing out differently in its feel depending on which system you use.
Oh gosh, do I need to go find the stormwind fallacy thread from gleemax? Because I am sure I am not up to trying to show how mechanics and flavor need not be tied to each other. That you can use a different flavor to describe the same mechanics.
Oh gosh, do I need to go find the stormwind fallacy thread from gleemax? Because I am sure I am not up to trying to show how mechanics and flavor need not be tied to each other. That you can use a different flavor to describe the same mechanics.
No, you just need to improve your reading comprehension with respect to my post and, hopefully, have something substantive to say on the issue.
but it is certainly capable of telling the stories that Paizo is publishing.Could they tell Hook Mountain with a guarantee that Wizards won't change their mind at a future point in time that it violates their community standards?
Ummm. Sure. Why not? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here ...
Let me state again, for the record, that I am not arguing that Paizo should be telling their stories using 4th edition mechanics. I am saying that it is certainly possible for someone else to do so (which is, I believe, what the OP was asking).
O
I think you are missing the point. Some are claiming that Paizo could never have been able to pull off a RotRL type story using 4e to begin with. That 4e makes it IMPOSSIBLE to tell those types of stories. Arcesilaus is saying that is bupkus, that those type of stories could still have been told with 4e. It is not the whole taking something that is already written and translating it that is the issue here. It is if it could have been written using the other system to begin with.
I don't know if the intent was to say it would be *impossible* so much as 4e doesn't *lend* itself to telling the stories as readily. It's similar to translating OWoD Mage into the Hero system; it can be done (and has), but something of the intent is lost in the translation.
Now, how different people interpret the stories may be different, but that is the nature of the author/reader dynamic. Some people could translate things and keep the feel they had before while others can't, but I'd be willing to bet that those two groups had different interpretations of the stories in the first place.
I think as far as Paizo goes, they made a business decision and encouraged others to translate to fit their interpretations. That's how any product should be treated. I've been translating 1e modules and stories to fit my interpretations for several editions now, and each translation fits my interpretation within the context of what I wanted. There's no need for Paizo to make multiple versions and risk a lawsuit when competent gamers can do it on their own.
No, you just need to improve your reading comprehension with respect to my post and, hopefully, have something substantive to say on the issue.
Oh gosh, do I need to go find the stormwind fallacy thread from gleemax? Because I am sure I am not up to trying to show how mechanics and flavor need not be tied to each other. That you can use a different flavor to describe the same mechanics.
Well, I don't know anything about Stormwind, but I can tell you that I don't think story and mechanics are so inextricably linked that it is impossible to tell a 3.5 story with 4th edition mechanics (particularly based on the fact that I am, in fact, doing so in my current campaign, with considerable success).
O
Well, I don't know anything about Stormwind, but I can tell you that I don't think story and mechanics are so inextricably linked that it is impossible to tell a 3.5 story with 4th edition mechanics (particularly based on the fact that I am, in fact, doing so in my current campaign, with considerable success).
O
if by the story you mean the plot elements and all that, then sure. But it's not going to have the same feel with the 4E mechanics. So the story, as it plays out, is going to be at least somewhat different (if you count the feel as part of the story, which I do). Not that this is necessarily good or bad, but it is a difference and that's the point that was being made. I think that depending on the end result you are going for, some stories are going to be better suited for 4E and some better suited for 3.5E. Over even older editions. I've converted plenty of old 1E modules for use in my 3.5E group. They were fun, but they weren't the same. I didn't expect them to be the same given the different mechanics.
Ummm. Sure. Why not? I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here ...
I was under the impression that the d20 logo's community standards was to restrictive, so they made their own 3.5 OGL logo. I remember Logue making a joke about how all books where he gets cover credit will be disallowed under the GSL because of the community standards. If it was to much for them when they had the option of going OGL and putting black tape over the logo, how bad is it going to be if they do not have the option of using their campaign setting ever again?
Let me state again, for the record, that I am not arguing that Paizo should be telling their stories using 4th edition mechanics.
ok... so? what are you arguing? if you want to do Pathfinder in 4E, then do it. WHat do I care? What's the discussion about?
I remember Logue making a joke about how all books where he gets cover credit will be disallowed under the GSL because of the community standards.
This is a good point. I have changed one of the story elements of a 4E adventure I am working on under GSL for this very reason. It's not the 4E mechanics changing the story I'm telling in this instance, but the license is certainly doing so.
Let me state again, for the record, that I am not arguing that Paizo should be telling their stories using 4th edition mechanics.ok... so? what are you arguing? if you want to do Pathfinder in 4E, then do it. WHat do I care? What's the discussion about?
I think it has something to do with comments like this:
As mentioned above, I've posted here and there before on the topic. But the main problem is that there are countless changes to the flavor of the game hardwired into the rules themselves that, were we to do a 4th Edition Golarion, we'd either have to rewrite the rules anyway, or we'd have to rewrite Golarion, which isn't an attractive option given we're already a year and a half into building the world.
If individuals are capable of doing it without rewriting the flavor of the setting or changing the rules of the system they are using, why does Paizo's staff feel it is so difficult of a task?
If individuals are capable of doing it without rewriting the flavor or changing the rules of the system they are using, why does Paizo's staff feel it is so difficult of a task.
I don't believe the word "difficult" appeared in the post you are citing. He said it wasn't an attractive option. Nothing wrong with that. It takes time, and there's no need for them to go with GSL. If individuals want to take the time to make their own conversions then that's a separate matter.
I don't believe the word "difficult" appeared in the post you are citing. He said it wasn't an attractive option. Nothing wrong with that. It takes time, and there's no need for them to go with GSL. If individuals want to take the time to make their own conversions then that's a separate matter.
But he does say, "we'd either have to rewrite the rules anyway, or we'd have to rewrite Golarion". So you are right, "difficult" was a poor choice of words on my part, "impossible" would have been better since James believes that he would HAVE TO change either the flavor of the setting or the mechanics of the system, something individuals don't seem NEED TO do.
But he does say, "we'd either have to rewrite the rules anyway, or we'd have to rewrite Golarion". So you are right, "difficult" was a poor choice of words on my part, "impossible" would have been better since James believes that he would HAVE TO change either the flavor of the setting or the mechanics of the system, something individuals don't seem NEED TO do.
I suppose it depends on how true you want to remain to the setting and the flavor.
Take this example - the Warhammer RPG. If I wanted to write up a version of that for 4E, I could do it. But I'd have to change a lot of the flavor of the setting. A lot of what is in the RPG would have to be scrapped, seriously re-written, or reinvented for the new mechanics.
I think all Paizo is saying is that writing Golarion for 4E would tkae enough time and effort that it doesn't make sense for them to do it. I think you'd inherently change the flavor by switching mechanics, personally. And when you combine that with GSL what reason is there for them to do it?
If individuals are capable of doing it without rewriting the flavor of the setting or changing the rules of the system they are using, why does Paizo's staff feel it is so difficult of a task?
Read my comments higher up about how the company needs to maintain continuity while players do not have to do that. I'm not going to post in circles.
I think all Paizo is saying is that writing Golarion for 4E would tkae enough time and effort that it doesn't make sense for them to do it. I think you'd inherently change the flavor by switching mechanics, personally.
So basically, in your view, Paizo was stuck with having to stay with 3.5 (or their own deviation, which might also diverge from some of the already established stuff when it finally comes out) the moment they started their own setting, without dropping the setting.
So basically, in your view, Paizo was stuck with having to stay with 3.5 (or their own deviation, which might also diverge from some of the already established stuff when it finally comes out) the moment they started their own setting, without dropping the setting.
No. They could convert it if they felt it was worth the time and effort. They don't, and I don't think it is worth it either. The conversion would still be Golarion, but I do think the flavor/feel of adventuring in Golarion would have to change to some degree (reflective of the new mechanics). Not saying the change would be good or bad, but in my opinion they made the right choice sticking with 3.5 until Pathfinder RPG is ready.
So basically, in your view, Paizo was stuck with having to stay with 3.5 ... the moment they started their own setting, without dropping the setting.
IMO, anyone that does not want to be goodman games (and make settingless material) is going to be less then encouraged.
If individuals are capable of doing it without rewriting the flavor of the setting or changing the rules of the system they are using, why does Paizo's staff feel it is so difficult of a task?Read my comments higher up about how the company needs to maintain continuity while players do not have to do that. I'm not going to post in circles.
You mean the one that Arcesilaus responded to and totally negated? Yeah, I read that post.
As mentioned above, I've posted here and there before on the topic. But the main problem is that there are countless changes to the flavor of the game hardwired into the rules themselves that, were we to do a 4th Edition Golarion, we'd either have to rewrite the rules anyway, or we'd have to rewrite Golarion, which isn't an attractive option given we're already a year and a half into building the world.
What I understood from the OP question and James' reply was that "changes to the flavor of the game" include things such as the concept of rituals and Tieflings being a core race which make it difficult to develop the same style of fantasy world while staying within the SRD.
When they look at developing the campaign world, they HAVE to look at how it will have to be developed for publication.
Ahem.
Let me state again, for the record, that I am not arguing that Paizo should be telling their stories using 4th edition mechanics.ok... so? what are you arguing? if you want to do Pathfinder in 4E, then do it. WHat do I care? What's the discussion about?
I've been wondering about this for a while: the Paizo staff has said before that one of the reasons they did not convert to 4E is because it would keep them from telling the kinds of stories they want to tell.
What exactly do they mean by that?
My point is not that Paizo SHOULD or ever WOULD publish their adventures using 4th edition rules.* I'm simply responding to the OP that they certainly COULD, if they wanted to. There is nothing in Pathfinder adventures that is incompatible with 4th edition or impossible to recreate using 4th edition rules.
I guess I'm most incensed by James Jacobs's comments in this thread in which he defended the Paizo decision not to convert to 4th edition by agreeing with a series of contentions about it that I find to be absolutely false. I generally respect and appreciate JJ's knowledge of the game and the quality of his products, but, ultimately, I think that he was speaking for Paizo and was simply trying to defend the decision to publish and sell the PFRPG. In short, I saw it as a PR and sales-pitch move, and I think it was somewhat duplicitous. Thus, my involvement in this conversation.
O
* Although I think, ultimately, they will.
If individuals are capable of doing it without rewriting the flavor of the setting or changing the rules of the system they are using, why does Paizo's staff feel it is so difficult of a task?Read my comments higher up about how the company needs to maintain continuity while players do not have to do that. I'm not going to post in circles.You mean the one that Arcesilaus responded to and totally negated? Yeah, I read that post.
No. I mean the complete difference of opinion Arcesilaus and I had, and therefore, by definition, not negated.
Opinions are NEVER wrong. They can differ, but are not wrong.
* Although I think, ultimately, they will.
Thank you for your arrogant opinion. Another reminder why I do not like 4E.
I guess I'm most incensed by James Jacobs's comments in this thread in which he defended the Paizo decision not to convert to 4th edition by agreeing with a series of contentions about it that I find to be absolutely false.
Unfortunately, plenty of us find the contentions to be absolutely accurate, so since we're dealing with a subjective issue there's going to be no convincing or prevailing.
Next case.
*bangs gavel*
* Although I think, ultimately, they will.Thank you for your arrogant opinion. Another reminder why I do not like 4E.
Well, as you pointed out, at least it CAN'T BE wrong. :)
I'm not sure why you think my opinion is arrogant (although I suppose I might be), it's simply my opinion, based on my view of the 3.5 market vs. 4th edition market and Paizo's presumed desire to remain in business.
Finally, I really don't understand why you think my opinion speaks in some way for the entire series of 4th edition books (which, I might point out, likely have no opinion about this matter at all, being inanimate objects) or, in some way, reflects upon them.
O
I guess I'm most incensed by James Jacobs's comments in this thread in which he defended the Paizo decision not to convert to 4th edition by agreeing with a series of contentions about it that I find to be absolutely false.
Unfortunately, plenty of us find the contentions to be absolutely accurate, so since we're dealing with a subjective issue there's going to be no convincing or prevailing.
Next case.
*bangs gavel*
meh. I really don't feel like throwing myself into another 3.5 vs. 4th edition battle, but let's be clear ...
Most of the comments I'm referring to (made by Taliesin Hoyle, upthread) are not subjective.
Subjective issues are not SET IN STONE. I have many subjective opinions and observations (in fact, I might argue that every a posteriori thing I am or ever have been aware of is subjective), but that doesn't mean that my mind can't be changed or that someone couldn't prevail over me in an argument about them. This is mostly due to the fact that, DMMcCoy's statement notwithstanding, opinions can sometimes be wrong. We're not discussing whether or not blue is prettier than pink, we're talking about whether or not a system of gaming rules, that we are all able to read and comprehend (presumably), has a series of attributes and characteristics. I don't really want to get into the argument now, but you can't simply hand-wave the discussion away as "subjective."
O
|
The fan 4E Pathfinder AP conversions are either different by degrees from the original APs as presented OR breaks from the fluff and possibly some rules hardwired into 4E and the GSL, not to mention all the bits they wouldn't be able to include because of the GSL and the OGL material that they could no longer use).
And I for one am glad they have stuck with 3.x friendly fluff.