What about Pathfinder is Incompatible with 4E?


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

101 to 150 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Hexmage1077 wrote:


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?

Look, I'm not Paizo staff, but I'm pretty sure that if they printed their AP's with NO STATS and left all of the leg work to the DM's to stat out and prep it could be done with MOST systems.

However for a lot of us that's NOT the main reasons why we buy pre written adventures. It's the combination of the story AND the crunch which is usually done for you.

And I think that's where a lot of people ge caught up in the "Oh it can be done, what the hell are James and Erik talking about?"

There's a big difference between doing a conversion of a pre-existing product, by saying "Let's just give Karzoug some cool 4E powers and the players will never know the difference" and producing that same encounter in print for general use.

Having GM'd both 4E and 3.5 I can honestly say that I like the wide array of options I have with which to plan an encounter in 3.5, specifically in regards to spellcasters. I get to look at the NPC's class and baring any particular restrictions (like being a specialist caster for instance), I know how many spells and abilities I have to work with in a specific encounter an I feel that I have enough wiggle room to do what I want.

On the other hand with 4E I feel that the options are limited and that I'm being told to use these same 3-4 powers and that's that.

Now granted sometimes it MAY AS WELL BE the same powers that I'd be using in either edition (or same type. Xattack power/spell, Ydefense power/spell, but I like having the choice.

So basically I'm agreeing with those who are saying it can be done, but I can see why Paizo wouldnt want to in terms of changing to FEEL of the world. In 4E (to me) it feels like everyone has superpowers. Also the entire idea of the Thassilon and the Runelords is centered around these virtues / sins which are in turn centered around the concept (mechanical or otherwise) of specialist magic. I know the 4E crowd is quick to brush aside that as not being an issue in 4E because you're free do define what specialist magic does per instance. But a lot of people LIKE having the pre-established short hand for what these things do, even they decide not to use them.

The same thing with the missing classes that typically the 4E crowd says arent an issue. Nualia is an Aasimar Fighter/Cleric. Now I just checked the 4E MM and was unable to find Aasimar under A (for Aasimar) O (for Outsider) P (for Planetouched). I think we'll all agree that both the 4E fighter and Cleric are very different from their 3.5 counterparts. For that matter while we're here Multiclassing is completely different as well. Is Nualia a Cleric who is dipping into Fighter abilities? Or Vice Versa? Instead of having an array of Cleric abilities at her disposal in 4E she now has one or two? Was that part of her original design as an adversary for the PC's? No now you have to rethink her entire role and how she interacts with the PC's as well as whatever allies she has with her in the encounter.

So like I said it probably can be done, but why would Paizo and crew want to for a game that they didnt even have access to until the release date?


DMcCoy1693 wrote:

Its indicitive of the overall view of SOME vocal members in the pro-4E crowd. The opinion that EVERY 3E gamer out there will eventually to 4E and its just a matter of time. "Resistance is Futile" kind of mentality. I am completely sick to death of that segment in the pro-4E crowd assuming they know my mind better then I do. And the more I hear it, the less willing I am to ever give 4E a chance.

That attitude is arrogant and presumptuous. And offensive. Its one of the reasons why I stopped buying wizards books (because I saw nothing but that same attitude from nearly all of them for over 6 months after last GenCon, Rodney Thompson was one of the few exceptions).

Edit: allow me to clarify myself. I am long since past the date of ever being willing to give 4E a chance. That attitude is the #1 reason why I refuse to. I have said it many times before, I am sure 4E is a fun game, but it isn't the game for me.

Actually he said that he believed Paizo would eventually go 4e, he didn't say anything about individual players. So unless you ARE Paizo, then I think you might be being overly sensitive.

It is no secret that the 3.5 market is drying up, go see what the Necromancer guy is saying if you don't want to take my word for it. Now Paizo may be able to make an oasis and start expanding and growing in the wasteland. But it is also possible Paizo might find that their wells are drying up and they may have to relocate to 4e. He just thought the latter is more likely, while you believe the former is.


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Arcesilaus wrote:
Well, as you pointed out, at least it CAN'T BE wrong. :)

Correct. You can think whatever you like. The question is whether or not reality and your opinion will ever agree.

Arcesilaus wrote:
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.

Its indicitive of the overall view of SOME vocal members in the pro-4E crowd. The opinion that EVERY 3E gamer out there will eventually to 4E and its just a matter of time. "Resistance is Futile" kind of mentality. I am completely sick to death of that segment in the pro-4E crowd assuming they know my mind better then I do. And the more I hear it, the less willing I am to ever give 4E a chance.

That attitude is arrogant and presumptuous. And offensive. Its one of the reasons why I stopped buying wizards books (because I saw nothing but that same attitude from nearly all of them for over 6 months after last GenCon, Rodney Thompson was one of the few exceptions).

Edit: allow me to clarify myself. I am long since past the date of ever being willing to give 4E a chance. That attitude is the #1 reason why I refuse to. I have said it many times before, I am sure 4E is a fun game, but it isn't the game for me.

D00d, I totally agree with you about some of these Pro-4E people. That said, I had to be fair and give the system a shot so I ponied up my $55 bucks for the gift set on Amazon. Then I prepped and ran a game at our local D&D Meetup here in NYC. And you know what? I had fun. It's a good, well designed game. But there were quite a few dealbrakers in it for me that really put me off on the system. I also got into a few discussions in real space with some Pro 4E people who like the system but see where I was coming from with some of the things I didnt like. Which goes to show that I think people are more reasonable in real space due to lack of anonymity.

So this is first time since I was 14 where I wont actively be supporting the current edition of D&D. I've already house ruled in Healing Surges because I do like the concept for the sake of the PC's and a few other things but I won't be going 4E. To top it off if Paizo vanished from the face of the earth I'd still just be using whatever 3.5 materials I presently had (which is ALOT) to play the game I want to play.

I'm not the only one who feels this way, I've spoken to quite a few people who bought 4E expecting to be rocked and who were more than a little disappointed and have decided to stick with 3.5 or play something else altogether. I also know a few people who think 4E is the s~%&. Basically, the fanbase is split and unlike a few other posters here, I think it's gonna stay split. Especially when people are trying to tell you youre a jerk for liking the game that you do (from both sides...).


Scott Betts wrote:
Darrin Drader wrote:
If Pathfinder were to go 4E, it would lose a lot of subscribers who don't enjoy the way 4E works. After attending the con yesterday, it's clear to me that it's more than just the vocal minority who aren't happy with 4th edition and won't be playing it.

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.

I would argue that the people attending RPG conventions tend towards the gaming-elitist. I have heard nothing but wonderful things from my players and the many others in my area. 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.

Thankfully, as with the release of 3rd Edition, gamers do tend to come around once the knee-jerk reactions subside.

QFT

Thank you.


There ARE some thematic things that only work in 3e that don't work in 1e/2e and 4E. Converting characters isn't one of them as really, you can reflavour a warlord easily into a bard and the players themselves wouldn't know the difference.

(Like I said before, it is much easier to convert a 1e/2E module to 4e).

1. Stripping the party of magical items. Across all editions, this can be done but 3E character depend HEAVILY on their consumables and permanent magic items by level 5.

In 1e/2e, given that magic items couldn't be bought, your magical items were less essential to your character as they couldn't be the "optimum" for your class. Wheras in 4E, magical items aren't as strong and essential to the characters as before. If for example, you stripped a fighter of his gear in 1e and say gave him a magic sword and a magic shield, his "efficiency" compared to his normal self isn't that bad (his effectiveness probably drops a couple of levels) since he's not going to have the best gear for his level. In 3e, the same situation and the fighter loses a lot more levels the higher his own level is.

2. Magic itself. There's a "rock-paper-scissors" magical battle in 3E modules (especially Paizo) where the casters are expected to have "spell X, Y and Z, be using buff spells A, B and C". In 1e/2e, thanks to the magic rules, you couldn't assume a wizard would have said magical answer and thus, you either provided it in the form of a scroll or you just didn't design encounters that depended on "have this spell". There was also MUCH less pre-battle buffing. For example, there was a gladiator encounter in AoW where the PCs are "tricked" into pre-buffing but then the encounter doesn't actually start until the buffs have run out. This tactic REALLY makes no sense in 1e/2e or 4E, but is totally a 3E construct.

3. Basic assumption is that the PCs are fighting one big bad (ironically, 4E handles Solo fights better for the monsters) whereas pre 3e, most battles seem to be at least 1 pc per enemy if not more heavily faoured for the enemy.

4. Character build. 1e/2e was much less focused on the "build" for characters as there was much less options. The same thing applies to 4E to a smaller extent (doesn't have as many build points thanks to a much more sensibly designed multiclassing system). Many modules are very swingy in 3E depending on hos good the character build is whereas in 1e/2e, I found that it seemed people had the same "diffuculty" with modules.

I actually agree with the charge that 4E is more gamist/narrative than 3E. I don't think simulationist works very well with D&D. A good example would be the aforementioned Solo/monster role. It's all nice and well to have a monster built on the same chassis but given the different REQUIREMENTS for said monster, this isn't good to actually use.


pres man wrote:


It is no secret that the 3.5 market is drying up, go see what the Necromancer guy is saying if you don't want to take my word for it. Now Paizo may be able to make an oasis and start expanding and growing in the wasteland. But it is also possible Paizo might find that their wells are drying up and they may have to relocate to 4e.

Yes, this is the same Clark who jumped full on the 4E bandwagon and bought whatever WOTC is selling and now finds himself in a bit of a spot because of WOTC's restrictive GSL. Clark was basically led to believe that he was actually going to be able to produce under the GSL and he still can, but at no point will it be in his favor to do so.

Also, someone correct me if I'm wrong, Necromancer is a bit of a part-time endeavor for Clark.

Paizo is a full time gig for a lot of people and yet how many times has Erik or James come on THIER OWN BOARDS and said that Paizo is doing well or even better than they expected.

The 3.5 market may be drying up, but not enough to drive all 3.5 product out. As long as there are people who are still playing 3.5 / Pathfinder (and there are enough obviously to keep Paizo in business after the 4E launch) Paizo will do okay. Especially since we apparently have 4E people still buying Paizo material to convert over to 4E. I haven't really heard of a lot of people doing things the other way around.


ShinHakkaider wrote:


The 3.5 market may be drying up, but not enough to drive all 3.5 product out. As long as there are people who are still playing 3.5 / Pathfinder (and there are enough obviously to keep Paizo in business after the 4E launch) Paizo will do okay. Especially since we apparently have 4E people still buying Paizo material to convert over to 4E. I haven't really heard of a lot of people doing things the other way around.

Seems like it was a bit of an over-statement on Clark's part. Or, rather, that people are interpreting it as more than it was.

Yes, with WotC out of the 3.5 market, the 3.5 market is going to be smaller. No doubt. So "drying up" is accurate in the sense. But to take from that that it is getting ready to disappear is a bit of a stretch.

It would be interesting to see market figures.

At least anecdotally, 3.5E stuff is still selling well at my local store, particularly the Pathfinder products, according to the owner. There's plenty of market for Paizo to stay with 3.5E/Pathfinder. I don't suspect that will change in the near future as a lot of people aren't going to switch to 4E at all. It's not inevitable that everyone will come on board, particularly with OGL still out there.


ShinHakkaider wrote:
The 3.5 market may be drying up, but not enough to drive all 3.5 product out. As long as there are people who are still playing 3.5 / Pathfinder (and there are enough obviously to keep Paizo in business after the 4E launch) Paizo will do okay. Especially since we apparently have 4E people still buying Paizo material to convert over to 4E. I haven't really heard of a lot of people doing things the other way around.

Indeed, right now, Paizo's doing good and looks like it will be successful without going to 4e. That doesn't mean things might not change. It may be that Paizo burns itself out producing 3 products a month to a community that already has alot of products. It may be that more groups gradual switch as more players leave to play 4e. Or maybe not and Paizo rises as the next big player. I don't think that someone saying they believe Paizo will switch at some point is necessarily being hostile or arrogant, just as someone who says they won't every isn't necessarily either. If Necromancer's situation shows us anything though, it is that companies should be careful about jumping the gun and saying "We will definitely switch" or "We will never switch".

Jon Brazer Enterprises

DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Its indicitive of the overall view of SOME vocal members in the pro-4E crowd. The opinion that EVERY 3E gamer out there will eventually to 4E and its just a matter of time. "Resistance is Futile" kind of mentality. I am completely sick to death of that segment in the pro-4E crowd assuming they know my mind better then I do. And the more I hear it, the less willing I am to ever give 4E a chance.
pres man wrote:
Actually he said that he believed Paizo would eventually go 4e, he didn't say anything about individual players. So unless you ARE Paizo, then I think you might be being overly sensitive.

*pats pres man on the head and looks upon him with sympathetic eyes* Its ok. Allow me to help you understand. Reference.

dictionary.com wrote:

in·dic·a·tive

–adjective 1. showing, signifying, or pointing out; expressive or suggestive (usually fol. by of): behavior indicative of mental disorder.
2. Grammar. noting or pertaining to the mood of the verb used for ordinary objective statements, questions, etc., as the verb plays in John plays football. Compare imperative (def. 3), subjunctive (def. 1).

This means it is expressive or suggestive of the vocal minority of the pro-4E crowd. The "every company will eventually go 4E" is the same kind of attitude that manifests (or signifies) itself in the "every gamer will eventually convert" kind of attitude.


DMcCoy1693 wrote:


This means it is expressive or suggestive of the vocal minority of the pro-4E crowd. The "every company will eventually go 4E" is the same kind of attitude that manifests (or signifies) itself in the "every gamer will eventually convert" kind of attitude.

Both sentiments, in my view, are expressions by insecure people who need to have external validation of their own decisions. There will always be such people. Not worth arguing with them.


pres man wrote:
If Necromancer's situation shows us anything though, it is that companies should be careful about jumping the gun and saying "We will definitely switch" or "We will never switch".

Yes, the are businesses. They are going to make business decisions that they feel are best, and those decisions can change over time.


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
This means it is expressive or suggestive of the vocal minority of the pro-4E crowd. The "every company will eventually go 4E" is the same kind of attitude that manifests (or signifies) itself in the "every gamer will eventually convert" kind of attitude.

Yes, yes. But as someone that is probably never going to switch from 3.5 (not for 4e, not for PfRPG, not for green eggs and ham, Sam I Am), I still found your reaction an "indication" of someone that was overly sensititve on this issue.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

pres man wrote:
I still found your reaction an "indication" of someone that was overly sensititve on this issue.

I freely admit I am overly sensative. I've gotten this attitude from the pro-4E crowd for a solid year.

*leaving thread*

*editted select parts of this post out*


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Oof.

Pretty busy thread today. Steering back into mechanics, rather than opinions:

Jeremy Mac Donald wrote:
CPEvilref wrote:
4e characters are expected to advance 1 level every 10 encounters. 3.x 1 every 14. How the heck do 4e characters advance slower than 3e?
I agree thats what the book says but go and count how many separate encounters there are in Whispering Cairn. Your not going to find 26-27 separate encounters - I've not actually counted but I suspect that a fairly good guess is there are 12 encounters in that adventure and the PCs will be 3rd level at the end of everything.

The 3.5 DMG states on pg. 41 (in the Behind the Curtain: Experience Points sidebar) "The experience point award for encounters is based on the concept that 13.33 encounters of an EL equal to the player characters' level allow them to gain a level." If you consistently go up against tougher encounters (Paizo adventures tend toward having many, if not most, encounters with an EL higher than the party's average level), you will gain levels quicker.

Also, traps and non-combat challenge situations (puzzles, skill checks to influence key events/NPCs, etc.) count as "encounters" in 3.5, too.


Sebastrd wrote:
• 4E does not limit choice. In fact, it manages to allow more choices over a...

This is a point I completely contest. 4.0 drastically limits choice. The iconic and highly favored for style concept of two weapon fighting, something that anyone with a reasonable Dexterity could do in 3.5 with no more investment than a feat, is impossible to do in 4.0 unless you're a ranger. The classic two weapon fighting scoundrel has to be a woodsman/spelunker, as does the brave, armor clad knight with two swords, or anyone else unless you don't mind just standing around with one sword being completely useless or maybe only getting a swing with both once per encounter.

4.0 limits choice by forcing archetype far more than 3.5 does. Certainly, it's easier to balance a game when you take away options, but that doesn't make it better. While a class's features are somewhat malleable at all levels (as in, you get to chose a new power), that isn't the same as the full scope of customization you could do with 3.5 and its feats/multiclassing system.


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
*editted select parts of this post out*

Darn, now my comment about how I am still flying around in my D7 Battlecruiser, doesn't make nearly any sense.


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
It would also gain a (very likely larger) set of new subscribers who DO like the way 4th

Poll taken on Paizo's boards before PRPG was announced showed that if Paizo went 4E, they'd loose a minimum of 50% of their subscribers. Second largest group said they'd go whereever Paizo went and the 3rd largest group said they wanted to go 4E.

Their subscribers do not agree with your statement.

My statement was about people who weren't already subscribing to Pathfinder, so I find it difficult to understand how the subscribers disagreeing with my statement matters. My argument was that for whatever subscribers they'd lose, they'd probably gain plenty more new ones for being the largest 3rd-party sign-on to 4th Edition.

Also, polls taken on a website about willingness to shift to a product that hadn't even been released yet isn't reliable.


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
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.

I said nothing about you. Just about gamers in general. Stop hunting for new ways to be offended.


pres man wrote:
ShinHakkaider wrote:
The 3.5 market may be drying up, but not enough to drive all 3.5 product out. As long as there are people who are still playing 3.5 / Pathfinder (and there are enough obviously to keep Paizo in business after the 4E launch) Paizo will do okay. Especially since we apparently have 4E people still buying Paizo material to convert over to 4E. I haven't really heard of a lot of people doing things the other way around.
Indeed, right now, Paizo's doing good and looks like it will be successful without going to 4e. That doesn't mean things might not change. It may be that Paizo burns itself out producing 3 products a month to a community that already has alot of products. It may be that more groups gradual switch as more players leave to play 4e. Or maybe not and Paizo rises as the next big player. I don't think that someone saying they believe Paizo will switch at some point is necessarily being hostile or arrogant, just as someone who says they won't every isn't necessarily either. If Necromancer's situation shows us anything though, it is that companies should be careful about jumping the gun and saying "We will definitely switch" or "We will never switch".

Understood and also very true.


Mr. Slaad wrote:
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.

I would much prefer fewer classes, all of which are fantastic and worthwhile out the gate, than four extra classes that are incredibly sub-par compared to others. Fighter, bard, monk, paladin? Awful in 3.5 core. Every one of the classes in 4th Edition contributes something worthwhile to the game.

Less prestige classes? There are more paragon paths and epic destinies in 4th Edition's PHB than there were prestige classes in D&D 3.5's DMG.

And spells? Yes, the wizard has fewer, but every other class now has a full set of interesting powers and abilities so that they aren't forced to stand their and say "I hit it," for round after round.


DMcCoy1693 wrote:
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.

Yeah, because Wizards absolutely did not develop more classes to cover a greater range of concepts in D&D 3.5. This is nonsense. You absolutely could not create any concept imaginable with D&D 3.5 core. This is ridiculous historical revisionism. The range of character options in 4th Edition is perfectly comparable to the range of options in D&D 3.5 - more so if you consider that every class now has its own full complement of powers to choose from.


You know, how come my posts (which I tend to think so highly of) almost always gets ignored but flamebait posts almost always get 100+ responses.

Yeah, yeah, it's the internet, but damn it people, we should know this by now...

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

Please don't feed the ______:

a) Trolls
b) Unwinnable arguments
c) Gremlins after midnight
d) All of the above

Grand Lodge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ross Byers wrote:

Please don't feed the ______:

a) Trolls
b) Unwinnable arguments
c) Gremlins after midnight
d) All of the above

e) Top 32 RPG Superstars


DMcCoy1693 wrote:

Its indicitive of the overall view of SOME vocal members in the pro-4E crowd. The opinion that EVERY 3E gamer out there will eventually to 4E and its just a matter of time. "Resistance is Futile" kind of mentality. I am completely sick to death of that segment in the pro-4E crowd assuming they know my mind better then I do. And the more I hear it, the less willing I am to ever give 4E a chance.

That attitude is arrogant and presumptuous. And offensive. Its one of the reasons why I stopped buying wizards books (because I saw nothing but that same attitude from nearly all of them for over 6 months after last GenCon, Rodney Thompson was one of the few exceptions).

Edit: allow me to clarify myself. I am long since past the date of ever being willing to give 4E a chance. That attitude is the #1 reason why I refuse to. I have said it many times before, I am sure 4E is a fun game, but it isn't the game for me.

Your eagerness to be offended is a real problem here. You're neglecting a game primarily because you don't like people saying that most gamers will eventually come around to the new system, even though it's probably the truth and is supported by previous edition changes. It's like you're being told "You'll probably end up like this," and are purposefully setting out to end up a different way just to spite them. There's no arrogance in the statements being made about 4th Edition's popularity. What we're saying is supported by history. We wouldn't be arguing for it if we didn't actually think it was true. But the response you're having to that argument is very similar to the sort of rebellion teenagers engage in against their parents.


Scott Betts wrote:


Your eagerness to be offended is a real problem here. You're neglecting a game primarily because you don't like people saying that most gamers will eventually come around to the new system, even though it's probably the truth and is supported by previous edition changes.

The problem with using evidence of previous edition changes is that no other previous edition change had ongoing support for the former edition like 3.5E/OGL/Pathfinder. You switched or your were pretty much done in terms of ongoing support. That's not the case this time, do I don't think evidence of past changes means a lot here.


Steerpike7 wrote:
The problem with using evidence of previous edition changes is that no other previous edition change had ongoing support for the former edition like 3.5E/OGL/Pathfinder. You switched or your were pretty much done in terms of ongoing support. That's not the case this time, do I don't think evidence of past changes means a lot here.

And while this is all well and good, I'm talking about the people who initially said "I hate 3rd Edition/3.5/4th Edition, it's just not D&D!" and then eventually decided, years down the line, that it was their favorite game and how could anyone have enjoyed 2nd Edition/3rd Edition/D&D 3.5. There are plenty of those now, with the same attitude towards the new edition that others had in past edition changes. Yes, the old edition is still receiving support, but that wasn't what mattered to these people coming around. It was that the initial "offense" of updating a product to a new edition eventually wore off and people actually began to enjoy the game for what it was. This may take just a bit longer on average now that people can turn to Pathfinder for their 3.5 needs, but as long as more and more people continue to adopt 4th Edition, its exposure will increase and slowly people who swore it off initially will come around. Even in past edition changes, it's not like the old edition's books were taken forcibly away from the players and burnt. People still said "I spent $XXXX on my 2nd Edition books and I'm going to continue playing it, gosh darnit!"

By the way, this isn't just true for role-playing games. Plenty of other concepts operate the same way (think operating systems).

Sczarni

Ross Byers wrote:

Please don't feed the ______:

a) Trolls
b) Unwinnable arguments
c) Gremlins after midnight
d) All of the above

Now... was it fire to arguments, water to kill gremlins, or just up and leaving to kill trolls.....

scott betts wrote:
By the way, this isn't just true for role-playing games. Plenty of other concepts operate the same way (think operating systems).

Actually OSs are a very good comparison... Vista is made to be easier for the computer-lite crowd, and 4th is made to be easier for the computer-RPG crowd...... Vista slows down computers that worked fine with XP and is more concerned with being pretty than functionallity, also similar to 4th.... the only thing is, people can no longer state their opinion by spending extra money to downgrade to XP because it was taken off the market, (and look at the growing number of linux users since vista came out for that reason)

Liberty's Edge

You'd think no one has ever heard of Hackmaster.


Arcesilaus wrote:
DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Arcesilaus wrote:
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

How do you tell a story about drow that your not allowed to use by GSL?

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
By the way, this isn't just true for role-playing games. Plenty of other concepts operate the same way (think operating systems).

I disagree with the OS example. For the most part, they're objectively more advanced than their predecessors. When one isn't better, it generally isn't as popular as its predecessors. Therefore, it's harder to compare it to an RPG, which is more subjective in quality.


Scott Betts wrote:


It was that the initial "offense" of updating a product to a new edition eventually wore off and people actually began to enjoy the game for what it was. This may take just a bit longer on average now that people can turn to Pathfinder for their 3.5 needs, but as long as more and more people continue to adopt 4th Edition, its exposure will increase and slowly people who swore it off initially will come around.

Perhaps. A lot of people I knew who weren't interested in 3.0 were just mad because a new edition was coming out, and they came around and played it, etc.

A lot of the people I know who don't like 4E have already played it and don't care for it. I don't think those guys are going to "come around." They just don't like the game.


Steerpike7 wrote:
The problem with using evidence of previous edition changes is that no other previous edition change had ongoing support for the former edition like 3.5E/OGL/Pathfinder. You switched or your were pretty much done in terms of ongoing support. That's not the case this time, do I don't think evidence of past changes means a lot here.
Coridan wrote:
You'd think no one has ever heard of Hackmaster.

I was kind of thinking the same thing, also wasn't there Castles and Crusades (I thought that was like earlier systems as well). I didn't want to speak up, since I never really got into those older editions, so am not exactly sure how close Hackmaster was.

Arelas wrote:
How do you tell a story about drow that your not allowed to use by GSL?

You don't. Instead you tell a story about "dark elves" (using standard elf stats). Of course if you don't use the word "drow" then don't get to have those meanful arguments like, "is it 'drow' with 'row' as in 'row your boat' or is it 'drow' with 'ow' like in 'cow'?"


Scott Betts wrote:
Steerpike7 wrote:
The problem with using evidence of previous edition changes is that no other previous edition change had ongoing support for the former edition like 3.5E/OGL/Pathfinder. You switched or your were pretty much done in terms of ongoing support. That's not the case this time, do I don't think evidence of past changes means a lot here.

And while this is all well and good, I'm talking about the people who initially said "I hate 3rd Edition/3.5/4th Edition, it's just not D&D!" and then eventually decided, years down the line, that it was their favorite game and how could anyone have enjoyed 2nd Edition/3rd Edition/D&D 3.5. There are plenty of those now, with the same attitude towards the new edition that others had in past edition changes. Yes, the old edition is still receiving support, but that wasn't what mattered to these people coming around. It was that the initial "offense" of updating a product to a new edition eventually wore off and people actually began to enjoy the game for what it was. This may take just a bit longer on average now that people can turn to Pathfinder for their 3.5 needs, but as long as more and more people continue to adopt 4th Edition, its exposure will increase and slowly people who swore it off initially will come around. Even in past edition changes, it's not like the old edition's books were taken forcibly away from the players and burnt. People still said "I spent $XXXX on my 2nd Edition books and I'm going to continue playing it, gosh darnit!"

By the way, this isn't just true for role-playing games. Plenty of other concepts operate the same way (think operating systems).

Maybe your right and 4e is inevitable and we all will be playing it soon (my group so far likes it, of course none of the groups near us do and the store isnt getting more 4e products). However, it doesn't get around that many 4e supporters (especially new ones) will stick with Wizards products only. Paizo switching to 4e would have hurt them greatly the past few months. Since they'd have wasted products to...October now? Even their next AP wouldnt work in the GSL. Effectively they'd have to stop production for a while and restart. I wonder if they can afford that. Especially if it requires getting rid of people who are currently paying money.


Arelas wrote:
How do you tell a story about drow that your not allowed to use by GSL?

Exactly.


Insert Neat Username Here wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
By the way, this isn't just true for role-playing games. Plenty of other concepts operate the same way (think operating systems).
I disagree with the OS example. For the most part, they're objectively more advanced than their predecessors. When one isn't better, it generally isn't as popular as its predecessors. Therefore, it's harder to compare it to an RPG, which is more subjective in quality.

I like to think that the gamer crowd is actually capable of deciding which games are "better". Game design is not all created equal. Yes, there are some aspects which are subjective. Other aspects, however, are not. Aspects of game design which decrease the level of fun the average player can derive from the game are bad, while aspects of game design which increase the level of fun the average player derives from the game are good. 4th Edition, in the aggregate, is an example of an improvement in game design over D&D 3.5, I believe.


Scott Betts wrote:
4th Edition, in the aggregate, is an example of an improvement in game design over D&D 3.5, I believe.

But that statement just goes to show the subjectivity, because while I play and enjoy both I find 3.5E to be superior :)


pres man wrote:
You don't. Instead you tell a story about "dark elves" (using standard elf stats). Of course if you don't use the word "drow" then don't get to have those meanful arguments like, "is it 'drow' with 'row' as in 'row your boat' or is it 'drow' with 'ow' like in 'cow'?"

Why would you want to miss out on that fun? :)

My understanding is you couldn't reimagine an idea from the monsters manual etc. under the GSL. Called Drow or not, you are either redesinging elves or drow. Of course you could come up with a new name. However, it seems you'd be hoping WOTC doesn't see it that way. They dont seem very answering about GSL questions. Heck when were the 3pp told they were coming out?

Id like to see some paizo 4e, I just dont think it's wise for them right now.


Arelas wrote:
Maybe your right and 4e is inevitable and we all will be playing it soon (my group so far likes it, of course none of the groups near us do and the store isnt getting more 4e products). However, it doesn't get around that many 4e supporters (especially new ones) will stick with Wizards products only. Paizo switching to 4e would have hurt them...

Oh, absolutely. In fact, I'm glad Paizo is sticking with 3.5/Pathfinder. I like the idea of a fledgling competitor on the market, since that's what propels innovation. On top of that, I love Paizo as a company and feel that their story team is top-notch. I don't think that, right now, it makes sense for them to consider moving to 4th Edition. In the future, however, it may be that the market for 3.5 will continue to decrease while the market for 4th Edition will increase. If that continues to hold true, eventually it will make perfect business sense for them to make the switch.

Silver Crusade

Scott Betts wrote:


I like to think that the gamer crowd is actually capable of deciding which games are "better". Game design is not all created equal. Yes, there are some aspects which are subjective. Other aspects, however, are not. Aspects of game design which decrease the level of fun the average player can derive from the game are bad, while aspects of game design which increase the level of fun the average player derives from the game are good. 4th Edition, in the aggregate, is an example of an improvement in game design over D&D 3.5, I believe.

Increasing and decreasing levels of fun about as subjective as one can get.


Arelas wrote:
pres man wrote:
You don't. Instead you tell a story about "dark elves" (using standard elf stats). Of course if you don't use the word "drow" then don't get to have those meanful arguments like, "is it 'drow' with 'row' as in 'row your boat' or is it 'drow' with 'ow' like in 'cow'?"

Why would you want to miss out on that fun? :)

My understanding is you couldn't reimagine an idea from the monsters manual etc. under the GSL. Called Drow or not, you are either redesinging elves or drow. Of course you could come up with a new name. However, it seems you'd be hoping WOTC doesn't see it that way. They dont seem very answering about GSL questions. Heck when were the 3pp told they were coming out?

Id like to see some paizo 4e, I just dont think it's wise for them right now.

I thought the 4e booked lacked alot of flavor about various 'monsters' (I don't have the books, don't plan on playing). If it does lack alot of flavor, then how could this be considered "reimagining" if there wasn't any "imagining" to be used initially?


Steerpike7 wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
4th Edition, in the aggregate, is an example of an improvement in game design over D&D 3.5, I believe.
But that statement just goes to show the subjectivity, because while I play and enjoy both I find 3.5E to be superior :)

I'd love to hammer this out in terms of a debate, but this isn't quite the place. I simply consider 4th Edition to be superior in terms of gameplay, and I feel reasonably assured that this can be supported in terms that would be very difficult to disagree with.


Scott Betts wrote:


I'd love to hammer this out in terms of a debate, but this isn't quite the place. I simply consider 4th Edition to be superior in terms of gameplay, and I feel reasonably assured that this can be supported in terms that would be very difficult to disagree with.

No need for a debate. It's a subject issue. I'm not just "reasonably assured" I have more fun with 3.5E, nor am I just reasonably assured that the group I played 4E with quit to go back to 3.5 because it was more fun, I'm 100% certain of both things. Your terms won't be at all difficult to disagree with.


Mikaze wrote:
Increasing and decreasing levels of fun about as subjective as one can get.

What's more fun to you? Having the chance to, upon facing your first encounter as a D&D player ever, have the orc barbarian win initiative, walk up to you, swing his greatsword, score a critical, and reduce your poor 4 hit point wizard from living to outright dead in a single action, before you've so much as cast your first spell? Or going into your first encounter knowing that you are safe from having to roll up a new character before your first action? The former is quite possible in D&D 3.5. The latter is true of 4th Edition. I don't think any gamer can tell me that they would have more fun rolling up a new character after such a death than if they'd actually gotten to participate in the encounter with their friends.


Scott Betts wrote:
The former is quite possible in D&D 3.5. The latter is true of 4th Edition.

That's an extremely unfortunate example for you. One of the main things I like better as a player in 3.5E is that the low-level play is much more dangerous. Not that anyone enjoys their character dying, but I prefer the possibility that what you described will happen to my first level character more than I enjoy the 4E way of approaching it.

Our games tend to be deadly, particularly at low levels, and we tend to have more FUN that way. I typically roll 2 or 3 characters so I'll have the next one ready if the first one bites the dust.

Liberty's Edge

Scott Betts wrote:
I like to think that the gamer crowd is actually capable of deciding which games are "better".

But not everyone in the "gamer crowd" (which in my opinion isn't even a single coherent group) is going to agree with each other.

Scott Betts wrote:
Game design is not all created equal. Yes, there are some aspects which are subjective. Other aspects, however, are not.

Can't argue with that.

Scott Betts wrote:
Aspects of game design which decrease the level of fun the average player can derive from the game are bad, while aspects of game design which increase the level of fun the average player derives from the game are good.

[off-topic rant]Applying the concept of "averages" to people is one of my big pet peeves. How would that work? "Combine person A with person B then cut the result in half?"[/off-topic rant]

Back on topic, it's not possible to objectively quantify fun. It varies from person to person. If "most people have more fun with this, that means it's objectively better" were a valid argument, then D&D would likely have died out in favor of video games.

Scott Betts wrote:
4th Edition, in the aggregate, is an example of an improvement in game design over D&D 3.5, I believe.

See, it's the "I believe" that cancels out the argument of objectivity. I have no problem with you believing that, but it's not a provable, objective fact that one system is better.

EDIT: Why did I think I could type a lengthy response without several people making most of my points first?

Silver Crusade

Scott Betts wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Increasing and decreasing levels of fun about as subjective as one can get.
What's more fun to you? Having the chance to, upon facing your first encounter as a D&D player ever, have the orc barbarian win initiative, walk up to you, swing his greatsword, score a critical, and reduce your poor 4 hit point wizard from living to outright dead in a single action, before you've so much as cast your first spell? Or going into your first encounter knowing that you are safe from having to roll up a new character before your first action? The former is quite possible in D&D 3.5. The latter is true of 4th Edition. I don't think any gamer can tell me that they would have more fun rolling up a new character after such a death than if they'd actually gotten to participate in the encounter with their friends.

Dude, even in that example there are still those that prefer that element of risk. Someone could turn your argument around and argue that 3.5 is factually more fun that 4E because risk is greater. And he would be wrong to assume his conclusion wasn't subjective as well.


Steerpike7 wrote:

That's an extremely unfortunate example for you. One of the main things I like better as a player in 3.5E is that the low-level play is much more dangerous. Not that anyone enjoys their character dying, but I prefer the possibility that what you described will happen to my first level character more than I enjoy the 4E way of approaching it.

Our games tend to be deadly, particularly at low levels, and we tend to have more FUN that way. I typically roll 2 or 3 characters so I'll have the next one ready if the first one bites the dust.

So you don't enjoy your character dying, but you like it better when it's more likely to happen? You prefer a higher likelihood of something happening that you don't enjoy to a lower likelihood? I thought the whole point of increasing fun was to make things that you don't enjoy less likely to occur. I realize that risk needs to be inherent in a D&D game, but are you really going to tell me that a game design that includes the significant chance of a player's first experience being the death of the character he's looked forward to playing is preferred?


Bleach wrote:
You know, how come my posts (which I tend to think so highly of) almost always gets ignored

Sorry, I guess I will give it a shot to respond to your above post.

Bleach wrote:
1. Stripping the party of magical items.

Yes, 3.x depends more on previous editions or 4e (at least I have been lead to believe this), so yes encounters where you "steal" the party's gear wouldn't be as damning. Then again, those kind of encounters are pretty lame to begin with, I don't think less of them or their effect is necessarily a bad thing. In fact I rarely do something like this. There are not leagues of super thieves in my worlds trying to steal the wizard's spellbook, or legions of rust monsters looking to destroy all the gear of fighters.

Bleach wrote:
2. Magic itself.

I personally think it is poor writing to make encounters where need spell X to get by. A party of a ranger, bard, monk, and paladin is going to have a very different set of abilities and magic than a party of a fighter, wizard, cleric, and rogue. Making encounters were the latter group has a chance and the former had no chance are not very well written in my mind.

Bleach wrote:
3. Basic assumption is that the PCs are fighting one big bad

I think that is again bad planning to do that too much. There is the old saying, "Don't put all your eggs in one basket." One foe can make for a very quick and possibly not challenging encounter, or it might be an overpowered encounter that leads to a TPK. I've found it is often better to send a larger group of foes (weaker usually) more often than one single foe (though I do that as well from time to time). I mean if you only ever face one foe at a time, why take feats like cleave?

Bleach wrote:
4. Character build.

Character builds are only as important as the individual player makes it. I've had players have their character planned out all the way to 20th level, and I've had other players do a more organic build. Again, encounter shouldn't be designed around characters better totally optimized but they shouldn't also be designed around all the PCs being goofballs either. Again, this is something where having one foe is a bad idea. You either design the creature to challenge the optimized character, and totally wipe the rest, or you put it more on the level of the goofball and the optimized character kills it in the first round. With multiple foes you can have some stronger and some weaker and thus give a diverse encounter.

101 to 150 of 268 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / What about Pathfinder is Incompatible with 4E? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.