Creative Director
|
Second Darkness wouldn't have worked in 4E because there are no erinyes devils or bards, both of which are KEY to the main villian.Seriously? How did you manage to pull off PF#2? Lamias aren't OGL and the version published by WotC does not have the same stats or abilities as the main villian in that module, yet you managed to create an interesting and exciting villian despite that handicap. Haunts can't be found anywhere in the SRD, but they are pure awesome. You seriously can't put out a product and say "succubi are demons in Pathfinder" and fix that problem?
If we were writing Pathfinder #2 under the GSL, I would have probably not done a snake-bodied lamia matriarch, to be honest, simply because the GSL IS more restrictive. And honestly... I'd rather stick with the game rules that aren't more restrictive, and the rules that I personally prefer. There's nothing wrong with preferring one set of rules over the other. I (and most of Paizo) just happen to prefer 3rd edition over 4th, and we've made our choice, and that's pretty much that. The fact that our sales are still strong (and are, in fact, increasing) indicates to me that, from a business perspective for Paizo, that choice was not the wrong choice.
And as for putting out a product that says "succubi are demons in Pathfinder," it's my reading of the GSL that you CAN'T do that. You can't redefine what monsters are if you're using the GSL. That means you can't change what the succubus is, or the eladrin, or the goblin, or the medusa, or anything. That makes sense, because WotC wants to maintain a constant and consistent look and feel to their intellectual properties, and they don't want to muddy the waters of their pool with dozens of different versions of monsters.
Frankly, by not playing in that pool we CAN go in and make changes and world-specific flavor to existing monsters. We probably wouldn't have been allowed to do the redesign of lamias we did in Runelords (or the ogres or goblins, for that matter!) if we were operating under the GSL.
I'd much rather make up our own new stuff than play with hand-me-down monsters I can't customize, in other words. Nor do I want to spend a significant portion of my work worrying about what we can or cannot do under a license as vaguely worded and subject to change as the GSL. I'd rather spend that time making a fun game.
(Lamias are OGL, in any event.)
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
A bunch of stuff about how the GSL, and not the 4e rules themselves, would limit the ability of Paizo to produce a 4e Pathfinder line.
Agreed. If the only option to publish is under the GSL, the problems you mention are serious. If that was the intent of your prior post, then I can't disagree. What I read was:
Also, since Golarion was built using the entire gamut of components from the game as it's stood over the past several decades (we've got druids and bards and demonic succubi and no dragonborn and old-school tieflings and lots of spells and gnome PCs and so on and so on), switching to 4E would have forced us to wait to use entire swaths of our world. Second Darkness wouldn't have worked in 4E because there are no erinyes devils or bards, both of which are KEY to the main villian. And had 4th edition dropped drow (they didn't, but we had no way to know at the time), we would have been stuck with an AP we couldn't use at all with Second Darkness (since we HAD to start working on it before we knew much about 4th edition anyway).
Which seems to relate entirely to the rules and the setting with no mention of the license whatsoever.
I stated in my post that, assuming there were a reasonable license available and not the GSL, there is no reason Paizo can't publish Pathfinder using the 4e rules. That's what I thought we were discussing.
If we were writing Pathfinder #2 under the GSL, I would have probably not done a snake-bodied lamia matriarch, to be honest, simply because the GSL IS more restrictive. And honestly... I'd rather stick with the game rules that aren't more restrictive, and the rules that I personally prefer. There's nothing wrong with preferring one set of rules over the other. I (and most of Paizo) just happen to prefer 3rd edition over 4th, and we've made our choice, and that's pretty much that. The fact that our sales are still strong (and are, in fact, increasing) indicates to me that, from a business perspective for Paizo, that choice was not the wrong choice.
I agree and have said as much in my very last post on this thread. I don't begrudge you the decision, I just get sick of the disingenous claims of "we can't make adventures with succubi because 4e says they are demons" when what you claim now to be saying is "we can't make adventures we like because we can't get a good license." That's a vastly different claim, particularly in a thread that heretofor has been focused entirely on the compatability of the Pathfinder setting with the 4e rules.
I think it means that they are not planning on going 4E with Pathfinder.
Nothing good will come from looking the issue more closely then that...but of course thats never stopped anyone, myself included, before.
Sebastian, it seems you had the right take on this. I stand corrected.
And, really, Jeremy nailed it the first response (quoted above)!
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.Enough people DIDN'T like it that Wizard's thought it necessary to make some sweeping changes.
Yes, but from the rumblings I've heard in other places, it wasn't the fans who minded so much as the writers/editors who didn't want to deal with maintaining continuity. They just wanted to plop any old adventure/event/scenario/theme into the Realms because Realms products sold well. However, because the Realms had many nations, organizations, etc. that interacted on multiple levels, this didn't work well unless it was fitted into the existing structure. So the solution was to nuke the Realms to remove the need for continuity.
|
Tieflings are present in the 3.5 SRD, does that mean they have to be present in Golarion?
Personally I'd say no but it would probably be a bad idea to explicitely exclude them (I don't have to like it but I think that WotC may have been right to include them in the 4E PHB; Paizo does similar in the Second Darkness Companion and I assume for quite the same reason: there are enough people who like to play them). And given their special background in 3E (dunno about the 4E tieflings), if you can't exclude them, you should leave space and possibility for their inclusion by players (internal consistency reasons).
Dragonborn is another thing. They didn't exist in the SRD so Paizo had no reason to even think about a place to integrate them into the setting. If Paizo went 4E it would be a very bad idea to explicitely exclude them from the setting as it goes directly against their principle of "letting people play what they want". So the question is, can they be included in a way not contradicting the old setting? I don't doubt that Paizo could do this without violating their setting's consistence. The thing is that it is very hard to imagine Dragonborn in Varisia (or the Darkmoon Vale) as there hasn't been the slightest sign of them so far. If they plan to return to these countries (as is probably planned with regard to the Ameiko-storyline and further modules),this might cause some problems. (internal consistency reasons)
Is the Dragon Mythology that Paizo put in Pathfinder #4 in the 3.5 rule set?
No, But now it is put into Golarion. And may be cemented by next year's Dragon Revisited. I've no idea if their dragon mythology would cause any problems when converted to 4E, but it would be a real bummer if they had to change it for what reason ever.
|
Creative Director
|
At this point, even if the GSL were to somehow magically become "more reasonable," I really doubt we'd shift gears to 4th edition anyway. Paizo is committed to the upcoming Pathfinder RPG and we've put too much work into it just to toss that aside.
ALSO: There's a huge difference between working under another company as a licensor and forging your own path. Paizo's tasted both fruits, and one of them is VASTLY more satisfying.
Anyway... I don't want to get involved in a huge edition war type thread. There's MORE than enough room for everyone here. WotC folk play Pathfinder games. Paizo folk play in 4th Edition games.
AND: Fan conversions of Pathfinder material to 4th edition, though, are undeniably awesome and welcome! :-)
Ok, this is how you do it:1. Don't allow dragonborn or tieflings as player characters. Gnomes aren't plentiful in Golarion, but if you really want one, then use the template in the back of the MM.
Gnomes may or may not be plentiful in Golarion, but I'm not running Golarion. I said as much. Gnomes have an entire country on the main continent in my setting, and are major innovators and the foremost experts on the dreamscape and other dream related fields. In addition, wealthy families in human lands often have a gnome scholar on retainer to tutor their children, and their children's children, and so on, since gnomes live longer than humans. And then there are gnomes in the dwarf mountains and the north as well...
2. If you want to restrict your game to 3 sources, then you can restrict it in 4th edition too.
Ah, but if I restrict it to just a certain number of sources, suddenly the world lacks things like: illusionists, necromancers, weather controlling druids, raging barbarians, and whatever else WotC decides should be part of a new power source so that they can sell a new book/class.
3. "Running out of magic" seems alien to me. Why would a wizard run out of spells, unless they ran out of components? Again you seem to want to apply a restriction - if you want to do so, then why not advise wizards that they can only use their INT in powers each day?
Because magic is the lifeblood of the world, and tapping into it to tell physics to "sit down and shut up" is difficult and complicated. And because, if it didn't the things one should really be able to do with magic would just about change the face of everything every second of the day. In addition, it's a very common idea.
4. I'm sure this can be achieved, by creating a few new races to suit. It's very easy to create a new race. Ten minutes tops.
I haven't even been convinced that homebrewed races for my campaign in 3.5 (which I've been playing and reading books on for years) are actually balanced, so I don't really want to try writing a new race for a brand new system where I have to figure out racial powers on top of everything else. I doubt it'd be as easy as you make it out to be, or else people would have done 4.0 well before WotC.
5. I do agree with this one. The two-weapon sets of powers in ranger are very fun, but why are they in ranger? What I would suggest is simply that you call the class 2-weapon fighter, not ranger. It's pretty balanced. Change the name and use the ranger powers. No one will mind. Am certain new classes will come to broaden options soon.
And the fact that such a key ability is a class ability that's almost impossible to pick up with any reasonable reliability of usage is one of the things that irks me. Classes in 4.0 are inherently more restrictive. I use tons of non-PHB classes in my games, but you could still create a swashbuckler from several different routes without actually relying upon any one class. With 4.0, you need the new classes WotC (or someone else) releases just to cover the bases.
6. I agree with this to a point. Where is the option in 4th edition to have people come from lowly beginnings to heroes? Bear in mind, though, that this is not new in 4th ed. "Expert and "aristocrat" classes are in and they don't progress in the same way, so clearly there was a view way back when that adventurer classes are a cut above the norm. 4th ed cements this. Calling a 4th ed 1st level character " super-powered" is a bit OTT. Pit a wizard and a kobold slinger against each other and find out who wins! Monsters are equally super-powered!
NPC classes, in particular the expert and aristocrat, weren't that far behind the PCs. Commoner, maybe, but the others are only marginally behind, and still inherently useful in a non-combat oriented way. The average expert is perfectly good at what his life depends on, since it likely doesn't involve spelunking into dank tombs to battle ancient liches.
Now, I've also played 4.0, because I wanted to actually see, even though what little ardor I had for it had been lost long before the actual release, but I was not impressed. Aside from a few flashy things that I could have more or less done with 3.5 mechanics, I didn't really see much that wowed me about the demo they had on World Wide D&D Day. Could just have been the module or the group, but I wasn't terribly impressed. Having tried to build a character I've sort of wanted to play (2WF Dwarf warrior), I was very disappointed to be stuffed into the ranger class when I wanted to be semi-competent with my preferred schtick.
I was pretty much resigned to playing 3.5, hoping that my fellow gamers would stick with it (most of the ones I really enjoy playing with are, except the ones who basically adopt whatever is new and shiny and seem to have difficulty sticking to a single game anyway), and then I heard about Pathfinder. What I like about Pathfinder is that it doesn't require me to relearn everything, just to look at it from a different angle. The characters and world I've constructed throughout my history are still viable, possibly with a shinier veneer, and the company seems to listen to its audience, too. The issues I've always had as minor nigglings in 3.5 (mostly the lack of HP at low levels that I'd never bothered to do anything about) have been dealt with, and the one mechanic I really hated about d20 (grappling) has been streamlined so much that when it came up twice in the one-shot I ran, I didn't moan or cringe. I'm excited about Pathfinder, and looking forward to the Beta, and I suspect part of it is familiarity, and part of it is that I can see myself using it instead of 3.5 for the world I've built, whereas I see much more effort and work in doing so for 4.0.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
At this point, even if the GSL were to somehow magically become "more reasonable," I really doubt we'd shift gears to 4th edition anyway. Paizo is committed to the upcoming Pathfinder RPG and we've put too much work into it just to toss that aside.
I'm not sure that I would want you to and I absolutely do not expect you to. To the extent there ever was the possibility of a Pathfinder 4e, that ship has sailed.
Anyway... I don't want to get involved in a huge edition war type thread. There's MORE than enough room for everyone here. WotC folk play Pathfinder games. Paizo folk play in 4th Edition games.
Okay, but can we get a moratorium on commenting on how succubi are no longer demons in 4e? It seriously drives me batty. If you're going to pick at small irrelevant details, you should at least focus on important irrelevant details, like the cover colors of the 4e core books. I am trained to expect blue=dmg, red=mm, brown=phb, but in 4e, blue=phb, red=dmg, and green=mm! I keep grabbing the phb when I want the dmg, the dmg when I want the mm, and not being able to find the phb at all.
|
AND: Fan conversions of Pathfinder material to 4th edition, though, are undeniably awesome and welcome! :-)
And able to be posted on the wiki
Actually, what Taliesin wrote is far from spot on and is indicative of the ridiculous misconceptions about 4E that are pervasive here.
• I think 4E actually makes storytelling easier, because it allows me to focus my efforts on the story and not on the rules.
• There is no monster ecology because there shouldn't be. I need the rules and mathematics for the monsters. The ecology and personality is the part I come up with myself.
Heh. There's a nice little bit of irony. I think you need to reacquaint yourself with the meaning of "misconception", since what you did was just post a couple of cute subjective personal opinions about 4e.
"Ridiculous misconceptions" indeed.
|
Creative Director
|
Okay, but can we get a moratorium on commenting on how succubi are no longer demons in 4e? It seriously drives me batty. If you're going to pick at small irrelevant details, you should at least focus on important irrelevant details, like the cover colors of the 4e core books. I am trained to expect blue=dmg, red=mm, brown=phb, but in 4e, blue=phb, red=dmg, and green=mm! I keep grabbing the phb when I want the dmg, the dmg when I want the mm, and not being able to find the phb at all.
No promises there. It's a small part of the whole, but it DOES pretty much summarize my feelings on the whole situation. It's not irrelevant at all to me, in other words.
|
Okay, but can we get a moratorium on commenting on how succubi are no longer demons in 4e? It seriously drives me batty. If you're going to pick at small irrelevant details, you should at least focus on important irrelevant details, like the cover colors of the 4e core books. I am trained to expect blue=dmg, red=mm, brown=phb, but in 4e, blue=phb, red=dmg, and green=mm! I keep grabbing the phb when I want the dmg, the dmg when I want the mm, and not being able to find the phb at all.
I agree. Drives me up the wall. That, and a few other statements. I get it, you don't like 4e. I do and I am happily converting Paizo material to the new edition.
That said, I love the Pathfinder and Gamemastery lines. While I don't plan on playing the RPG I do plan on buying APs and modules when I can and converting it to 4e. Which has been my modus operandi since the new edition came out.
But statements like the one up-thread really make me question that decision. I don't know why it gets to me but it does.
|
|
Okay, but can we get a moratorium on commenting on how succubi are no longer demons in 4e? It seriously drives me batty. If you're going to pick at small irrelevant details, you should at least focus on important irrelevant details, like the cover colors of the 4e core books. I am trained to expect blue=dmg, red=mm, brown=phb, but in 4e, blue=phb, red=dmg, and green=mm! I keep grabbing the phb when I want the dmg, the dmg when I want the mm, and not being able to find the phb at all.No promises there. It's a small part of the whole, but it DOES pretty much summarize my feelings on the whole situation. It's not irrelevant at all to me, in other words.
Right. That's cool. But statements like this, as well as your vocal opinion on the "Wrong Step" power of the Pathfinder Paragon Path, actually drive me away from your product. But this is a company board and I feel like when you speak here you speak for the company. Is that an unfair assumption?
I don't need the gaming companies I buy product from to agree with me. But I also don't think I need them talking about why they dislike my game of choice. Especially when such talk is not necessary to sell you product. You have a lot of loyal fans who also play 4e. Why even touch on the subject at all?
I don't need the company I buy product from to agree with me. But I also don't think I need them talking about why they dislike my game of choice.
I don't think James is able to keep people from asking the question that the OP asked - he just answered it in a manner that was honest and open. I personally appreciate that we can get an answer from him and read some of their reasons for doing what they decided to do, instead of getting a "this is what the company has chosen to do, don't ask why" line or no answer at all, like you'd get from some publishers.
|
|
I don't need the company I buy product from to agree with me. But I also don't think I need them talking about why they dislike my game of choice.I don't think James is able to keep people from asking the question that the OP asked - he just answered it in a manner that was honest and open. I personally appreciate that we can get an answer from him and read some of their reasons for doing what they decided to do, instead of getting a "this is what the company has chosen to do, don't ask why" line or no answer at all, like you'd get from some publishers.
Okay, I can understand that point. I think the difference lies in the statement. Saying "The GSL just won't work for us" or "Wizards took so long to get the GSL together that we had to make a choice" are pretty good and legitimate reasons.
But I see what you are saying and I agree to an extent.
|
|
I don't need the gaming companies I buy product from to agree with me. But I also don't think I need them talking about why they dislike my game of choice. Especially when such talk is not necessary to sell you product. You have a lot of loyal fans who also play 4e. Why even touch on the subject at all?
...because people (specifically, 4E fans) asked them?
They were asked to clarify exactly why they didn't want to go to 4E. They did, and are doing so, and have continued to clarify and explain when pressed about details. Would you prefer they instead snubbed their fans and refused to answer? The fact that they're this open with us, and take the time to explain themselves (especially when they don't have to) is one of the very things I love about Paizo.
|
Creative Director
|
Right. That's cool. But statements like this, as well as your vocal opinion on the "Wrong Step" power of the Pathfinder Paragon Path, actually drive me away from your product. But this is a company board and I feel like when you speak here you speak for the company. Is that an unfair assumption?
I don't need the gaming companies I buy product from to agree with me. But I also don't think I need them talking about why they dislike my game of choice. Especially when such talk is not necessary to sell you product. You have a lot of loyal fans who also play 4e. Why even touch on the subject at all?
I do speak for the company when I post here, it's true. And while my intention is not to drive anyone away, neither is it my intention to cover things up or to mask my opinions behind double-speak and corporate jargon (I haven't spent enough ranks in corporate jargon to be able to speak it intelligently, mostly).
As for why I touched on the subject? Because it was posted on our boards, and I assumed that folk would be interested to hear something about it from the Paizo side of things as a result.
I don't need the gaming companies I buy product from to agree with me. But I also don't think I need them talking about why they dislike my game of choice. Especially when such talk is not necessary to sell you product. You have a lot of loyal fans who also play 4e. Why even touch on the subject at all?...because people (specifically, 4E fans) asked them?
They were asked to clarify exactly why they didn't want to go to 4E. They did, and are doing so, and have continued to clarify and explain when pressed about details. Would you prefer they instead snubbed their fans and refused to answer? The fact that they're this open with us, and take the time to explain themselves (especially when they don't have to) is one of the very things I love about Paizo.
Except the more core reasons weren't the ones given. The core reasons are 1)the GSL, 2)Paizo had already invested in designing their own system, and 3)they subjectively like the 3.x system better. Instead of these reasons, we get things like "we can't tell the stories we want to" which doesn't really tell you anything.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Except the more core reasons weren't the ones given. The core reasons are 1)the GSL, 2)Paizo had already invested in designing their own system, and 3)they subjectively like the 3.x system better. Instead of these reasons, we get things like "we can't tell the stories we want to" which doesn't really tell you anything.
Particularly when it's so easy to change the minor details with which you seem so preoccupied (succubi = demons).
|
|
I don't need the gaming companies I buy product from to agree with me. But I also don't think I need them talking about why they dislike my game of choice. Especially when such talk is not necessary to sell you product. You have a lot of loyal fans who also play 4e. Why even touch on the subject at all?...because people (specifically, 4E fans) asked them?
They were asked to clarify exactly why they didn't want to go to 4E. They did, and are doing so, and have continued to clarify and explain when pressed about details. Would you prefer they instead snubbed their fans and refused to answer? The fact that they're this open with us, and take the time to explain themselves (especially when they don't have to) is one of the very things I love about Paizo.
Hey, I conceded the point.
I love Paizo as well and enjoy the product.
There have been statements about this in the past that have not originated with "4e fans". Certainly not his opinion on the Pathfinder paragon path.
I am tired of coming here and feeling like a pariah, even when I stick to the 4e forums. There is enough flaming going on here that I don't think we need staff adding fuel to the fire.
I thought I expressed my opinion on the subject and feelings on the issue with at least a modicum of grace. If everyone disagrees, fine. I am not threatening anyone and I want to make sure the staff understands I love their product.
But that aside, I just wish the overall tone of the boards were a bit more respectful to 4e fans who are also Paizo fans. And perhaps I am a touch oversensitive when I see things like this. I can accept that.
Particularly when it's so easy to change the minor details with which you seem so preoccupied (succubi = demons).
Unless, of course, the GSL does not allow you to do so.
I don't need the gaming companies I buy product from to agree with me. But I also don't think I need them talking about why they dislike my game of choice. Especially when such talk is not necessary to sell you product.
WotC's entire marketing campaign is based on talking about why they dislike *my* game of choice (3.x).
But, then, I don't buy products from them anymore. :)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Particularly when it's so easy to change the minor details with which you seem so preoccupied (succubi = demons).Unless, of course, the GSL does not allow you to do so.
If only there were some, I don't know, context to my post, something like a prior poster saying "if the reason you can't do 4e is because of the GSL, just say that rather than citing things like the flavor differences" and then I had said "particularly when the flavor differences are so easily fixed", then my post might have made sense.
Oh wait.
That is what happened.
Oh, stop it, you silly you...
|
|
I don't need the gaming companies I buy product from to agree with me. But I also don't think I need them talking about why they dislike my game of choice. Especially when such talk is not necessary to sell you product.WotC's entire marketing campaign is based on talking about why they dislike *my* game of choice (3.x).
But, then, I don't buy products from them anymore. :)
And thus, you prove my point. I don't think Paizo could ever screw that up the same way Wizards did. On that point, I can agree.
Hey, didn't you used to have some sort of duck-like avatar? For the longest time I thought your avatar name was Rauol_Duck because of that thing.
Shhh... never speak of the duck.
|
|
But that aside, I just wish the overall tone of the boards were a bit more respectful to 4e fans who are also Paizo fans.I agree with you on this point 100%.
Thank you.
James (if I can call you James?)I respect you. I love Paizo. I want to feel welcome here. I try to buy what I can, when I can. But money is tight and I can't subscribe.
I let myself get dragged into a flame war in the 4e portions of the board. I called someone a troll, which I never do. I am ashamed of that. But in response I was called a troll because Paizo is not supporting 4e. That is an issue.
I am still pretty angry about that right now. Not only angry at the poster but at my response as well. I hate being marginalized and I think I am feeling pretty sensitive about this.
So with that, I am going to say I am sorry if it seemed like I was attacking you. I am not. I am trying to express an opinion I seem to be failing.
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
Except the more core reasons weren't the ones given. The core reasons are 1)the GSL, 2)Paizo had already invested in designing their own system, and 3)they subjectively like the 3.x system better. Instead of these reasons, we get things like "we can't tell the stories we want to" which doesn't really tell you anything.
Your statements are largely incorrect.
You might recall that at the time we made our decision, the GSL was not yet available (though many of us suspected it would be pretty much what it is).
Also at that time, the only real investment we had made into what would become the Pathfinder RPG was some of Jason's time.
Next, the rules were not completely available (though we had seen public previews of game play and the other bits and pieces that WotC had revealed).
Finally, we did NOT say "we *can't* tell the stories we want to." That's a manipulation of our words. We said that we believe the *best* system to tell our stories is a 3.5 OGL foundation.
At the time, it was quite clear to us from all of the marketing and all of the previews that if we went with 4E, we'd have to bend some things severely to fit our design, while sticking with a 3.5-based ruleset would require a whole lot less bending. And we were proven correct to an even greater degree than we expected.
An awful lot of this thread boils down to "you can just do this" or "you can just do that" to make 4E work. Yes, we probably *could* tell 4E players to throw out core 4E races, or add core 4E classes, or whatever else we need. But the point is that we don't *have* to do such major things to make 3.5 work for us. Our world was designed around a 3.5 core; we know it really well, and we like it, and we believe that most of our customers like it. So, it continues to be the best system for us.
I agree with Sebastian and other posters when they say that the "contents" of Pathfinder could be translated to 4E. Sure, you might not have demonic succubi, but you could add them (perhaps under another name). Sure, you might not be able to use drow, but you could add them (perhaps under another name). You might not have bards, druids, ... but you could add them. ... That is, if you are willing and able to commit the time and make the effort to re-define them (and take away time, effort, and book space from the adventure itself in order to present those new additions).
But I do not see "We wouldn't be able to tell the stories we want in 4E" as a lie or as corporate speech. Because (as I alluded to in my previous post a few pages above) Pathfinder is more than just this "contents".
There are key elements of what makes Pathfinder enjoyable and fun (to me) that wouldn't translate to 4E (as far as I know).
Being able to start as "just an inch above commoners" then evolve into heroes is one of those elements. Consider the goblin attack on Sandpoint for example: 1st level PCs can feel as vulnerable as the crowd in 3E; but the 1st level PCs of 4E are already way beyond the "common people of Sandpoint". Sure, you could rework the rules and, for example, add up rules to play characters weaker than 1st level characters, but that's a big modification of the rule system.
Another such element is being able to "seamlessly" use what the villains use. That particular point is very important to me, because I feel that it allows my players to feel like part of the world. The typical example is: defeat a wizard villain, pick up his spellbook and use these new spells. The spell/power system of 4E and its general philosophy that PCs and non-PCs do not follow the same rules make it very hard (impossible ?) to put this element into the game, because villains have special villain powers that will never be available to PCs; they don't play with the same rules.
I would guess there are other such "non-content elements" that set Pathfinder adventure paths apart and that would not translate well into 4E. That does not mean that 4E is a worse game ... it's a different game, made for different kinds of adventures/worlds, that's all. That's how I read "We couldn't tell the tales we want in 4E".
|
|
If you think that the flavor of dragons being tied to specific types of magic is an insurmountable barrier to a company whose job it is to construct entire fantasy worlds from their imagination, you really have very little faith in Paizo. There's nothing difficult at all about converting the things you're talking about.
So then....where's the flavor of magic in 4e?
Show me. If its so easy show me.
bet you cant. 3.x allows the stories to be told that arent compatible with 4e.
Somehow I don't see these ideas floating well with the 4E diehards, they would want those elements included. Damned if you do and damned if you don't.I think I get what Sebastian is saying though, and trust me I'm NOT a 4E supporter. But If Paizo did decide to go 4E they could just as easily say that Dragonborn or Eldarin don't exist in Golarion. Or, even better, that they do but in an area very far removed that we haven't quite covered yet.
Then it would be up to them to include it.
There are no Ninjas normally in Greyhawk - unless some one wants Ninjas and then there are.
I love Paizo as well and enjoy the product.There have been statements about this in the past that have not originated with "4e fans". Certainly not his opinion on the Pathfinder paragon path.
I am tired of coming here and feeling like a pariah, even when I stick to the 4e forums. There is enough flaming going on here that I don't think we need staff adding fuel to the fire.
I thought I expressed my opinion on the subject and feelings on the issue with at least a modicum of grace. If everyone disagrees, fine. I am not threatening anyone and I want to make sure the staff understands I love their product.
But that aside, I just wish the overall tone of the boards were a bit more respectful to 4e fans who are also Paizo fans. And perhaps I am a touch oversensitive when I see things like this. I can accept that.
Agreed. I actually don't come to this board much anymore because of all the hate going on. I've been a Paizo customer for many years and, to be completely honest, these boards are beginning to have an effect on that. I don't feel comfortable posting here because I AM a 4e fan and the general tone of these boards makes me feel that my opinions are practically unwelcome. Therefore I visit the site less and miss out on discussion of the new products coming out, which ultimately leads to fewer Paizo purchases at the FLGS.
I know that Paizo values their forumites (and they should) but I wonder if they realize that there are people like me who feel affected by the vitriol that their forums seem to tolerate. RPGs are a small industry and no company can afford to lose customers (except maybe WotC). I think all the hate that goes on in these forums does a disservice to the excellent work that these guys are doing and I wish the more vocal flamers could see that.
Anyway, I just stopped by here on a whim and saw this thread and I was compelled to voice something that's really been bugging me for a long time. I wish you guys the best of luck with the PFRPG. I'll come back occasionally to check and see if things cool down, but until they do you won't be hearing much from me.
I disagree with the specific formulation "We can't tell the kind of stories we want to tell using Fourth Edition..."
I'd like to point out that that is *not* what we said...
Oh, sure, come in here with your facts and your direct quotations!
That's a a really good point, and one I'm glad to see made. It's very easy for what was actually said get subtly altered as it goes from party to party. The actual phrasing above is pretty compatible with what I posted way back in the dawn of this thread - they're not incompatible (as the subject phrases it), but it's a lot easier to stick with the work that's already been done rather than trying to bend 4th edition to what you've established or vice versa. And again, while it wasn't explicitly part of the original issue, the final text of the GSL pretty much completely validates your decision.
Except the more core reasons weren't the ones given. The core reasons are 1)the GSL, 2)Paizo had already invested in designing their own system, and 3)they subjectively like the 3.x system better. Instead of these reasons, we get things like "we can't tell the stories we want to" which doesn't really tell you anything.Your statements are largely incorrect.
Sorry, I wasn't as clear as I should have been. I did not mean that all of those were reasons at the beginning. #3 was more of the initial reason, that 3.x was subjectively more of the sytem that was wanted. As has been stated by yourself and others, it would have been possible to use a different system, but why bother when you have a great system already. #1 is mainly the problem why any kind of offical 4e products are out of the question, or at least that is what many of your supporters believe. Lastly, James Jacobs on this very thread said that even if the GSL was suddenly more favorable, that Paizo has invested too much time and energy to even consider dropping their new system.
So I guess you could say #3 is why in the past the decision was made, #1 was why in the present the decision still stands (as well as #3), and #2 is why it is likely to still stand in the (at least near) future (along with #3).
|
Creative Director
|
I know that Paizo values their forumites (and they should) but I wonder if they realize that there are people like me who feel affected by the vitriol that their forums seem to tolerate. RPGs are a small industry and no company can afford to lose customers (except maybe WotC). I think all the hate that goes on in these forums does a disservice to the excellent work that these guys are doing and I wish the more vocal flamers could see that.
We do. While we tend to take a pretty hands-off approach to moderation here, the only time I've seen that approach go away is when someone here at Paizo's had to step in to handle something related to a pointless edition-war type argument. One possible solution might even be to just close down the 4th edition boards and disallow discussion of the game, but that's basically the worst form of giving up we could do. AND it would annoy/estrange Paizo customers who DO want to talk here.
But yes. It bothers me. One of my best friends started posting on these boards, but because he's a big fan of 4th edition, he pretty much quit posting here and moved on elsewhere, and I was put in the awkward position of having my friend tell me that Paizo's boards are full of hate and vitrol.
Another thing that's frustrating is that these boards AREN'T filled with hate and vitrol; they are, for the most part, quite friendly and calm and mature. Before the whole 4th edition thing hit, that was more or less the case across the boards. It REMAINS the case in threads that aren't about 4th edition for the most part, and it does indeed sadden me that people (4E AND 3E fans alike) can't get along better.
Because the industry is big enough for both Paizo AND WotC to prosper. We don't have to "win" for the PF RPG to be a smash success. Wotc doesn't have to crush us for 4th Edition to be a success.
Since Paizo's elected to stay with 3rd edition and then, eventually, move into the new PF RPG, that does create the appearance that we're anti-4th edition to some folk. That's not the case. I certainly don't want 4th edition to fail, because I have a LOT of friends who work at Wizards of the Coast and there's a LOT of designers and folk there I deeply respect. I used to work there myself. I don't wish ill on them at all, and if 4th edition is successful, that's good for the ENTIRE industry.
Myself, I try to avoid falling into the trap of picking on 4th edition for the elements that I don't personally like, but I'm not always successful there. I appreciate and value being called out on that when I do slip, but that doesn't change the fact that I prefer 3rd edition AND wish 4th edition all the success in the world.
I suppose my best advice for now is to avoid threads that go into the 3rd vs. 4th black hole. Visit and read and post in other threads, and/or hunker down and wait. Things got pretty grim and gross here when the end of the magazines rolled around, but we came through that storm and the boards got nice again. I can only assume that, in time (hopefully soon!) everyone will realize that the games they like ARE being supported, and that badmouthing other games or generally being a jerk isn't gonna solve any problems. It's just gonna make more problems. So try your best not to let the hate get to you; ignore the threads or do whatever it takes to not get caught up in it, and keep playing the game of your choice!
|
We do. While we tend to take a pretty hands-off approach to moderation here, the only time I've seen that approach go away is when someone here at Paizo's had to step in to handle something related to a pointless edition-war type argument. One possible solution might even be to just close down the 4th edition boards and disallow discussion of the game, but that's basically the worst form of giving up we could do. AND it would annoy/estrange Paizo customers who DO want to talk here.
But yes. It bothers me. One of my best friends started posting on these boards, but because he's a big fan of 4th edition, he pretty much quit posting here and moved on elsewhere, and I was put in the awkward position of having my friend tell me that Paizo's boards are full of hate and vitrol.
Another thing that's frustrating is that these boards AREN'T filled with hate and vitrol; they are, for the most part, quite friendly and calm and mature. Before the whole 4th edition thing hit, that was more or less the case across the boards. It REMAINS the case in threads that aren't about 4th edition for the most part, and it does indeed sadden me that people (4E AND 3E fans alike) can't get along better.
Because the industry is big enough for both Paizo AND WotC to prosper. We don't have to "win" for the PF RPG to be a smash success. Wotc doesn't have to crush us for 4th Edition to be a success.
Since Paizo's elected to stay with 3rd edition and then, eventually, move into the new PF RPG, that does create the appearance that we're anti-4th edition...
Very well put. I think it could do the boards indeed good to put this statement (at least for a time) at the head of the 4th edition boards or at least at the blog. Hopefully some people that consider themselfs to be on two different sides in an ongoing "edition war" would thake the time to read this and consider the points made - especially that they are not fighting for "their team" among the designers and companies, but only fight for their own hate that does no one - be it in the industry or in the hobby - any good.
Thank you, Mr. Jacobs.|
|
I think this is just one of the casualties of the 'Edition Wars'. I think most of us have taken for granted the general unity of D&D fandom over the past few years, and the sudden introduction of a schism of this magnitude is not something that people are taking easily.
I also tend to think that the majority of gamers are, on the whole, people who accept the general notion that we all have different tastes, and some of us will prefer one system to the other. However, there is a minority on both sides that is of a more fanatical bent. Considering that emotions are still somewhat raw on all sides, it is unsurprising that it merely takes a spark to cause a renewed conflagration. The nature of the internet, and the tendency of posters to argue relentlessly (as if by doing so they could somehow 'win' and convince everyone of what they 'know' is right), merely adds fuel to this fire.
In the end, I think it will simply be a matter of time before all of this settles down, into something more of a 'stalemate' in the 'Edition Wars'.
I think this is just one of the casualties of the 'Edition Wars'. I think most of us have taken for granted the general unity of D&D fandom over the past few years, and the sudden introduction of a schism of this magnitude is not something that people are taking easily.
I also tend to think that the majority of gamers are, on the whole, people who accept the general notion that we all have different tastes, and some of us will prefer one system to the other. However, there is a minority on both sides that is of a more fanatical bent. Considering that emotions are still somewhat raw on all sides, it is unsurprising that it merely takes a spark to cause a renewed conflagration. The nature of the internet, and the tendency of posters to argue relentlessly (as if by doing so they could somehow 'win' and convince everyone of what they 'know' is right), merely adds fuel to this fire.
In the end, I think it will simply be a matter of time before all of this settles down, into something more of a 'stalemate' in the 'Edition Wars'.
I think, for the most part, you are on track here. The problem with things settling into a stalemate, however, falls apart when posters are posting less to prove their point about [insert edition or point or opinion] and more simply to "win" an argument. I don't think this is a product of fanatacism so much as personal desires to pound chests and actually say "I win; you lose".
I teach rhetoric in my classes, and I have seen more straw man attacks on these boards (and these are the only boards I frequent, so they are probably on the others too) than I ever see in freshmen rough drafts. Too many people misrepresent (intentionally or otherwise) someone else's statements in order to set up a "win". I have to wonder whether the underlying warrants of these arguments are rules-based of self-image based.
I don't mean this to be insulting to anyone. I just worry that these are the reasons so many gamers are accused of lacking social skills and thus excluded from other social opportunities in society. If we want to ever be taken seriously or accepted as anything but fodder for jokes about geeks, each of us needs to make a conscious effort to avoid "posting to win" and straw man rhetoric.
|
|
I don't mean this to be insulting to anyone. I just worry that these are the reasons so many gamers are accused of lacking social skills and thus excluded from other social opportunities in society. If we want to ever be taken seriously or accepted as anything but fodder for jokes about geeks, each of us needs to make a conscious effort to avoid "posting to win" and straw man rhetoric.
Actually, I would compare it more closely to contemporary political discourse, on various web forums, blog comments, et cetera, than anything else. Posters on both sides of the argument tend to be of a fairly determined mindset, tend to discount the views of the other side, and are prone to the sort of straw-man rhetoric that you refer to. I suspect that in both of these cases, too, the underlying intent is not to convince those of the opposing side, but rather, to sway the opinion of the undecided bystanders.
This leads me to wonder, then, if this is not so much a phenomena relating to gamers, but rather, to internet discourse as a whole.
... One possible solution might even be to just close down the 4th edition boards and disallow discussion of the game, but that's basically the worst form of giving up we could do. AND it would annoy/estrange Paizo customers who DO want to talk here.But yes. It bothers me. ...
I've appreciated the way you have expressed yourself vis a vis the 3.x v. 4 flame wars, which has always been polite and nonpartisan despite some degree of vested interest.
However, with 20/20 hindsight, it must be said that Paizo invited in this debacle when you expressly solicited opinions regarding what your reader base would prefer you to do when you were still undecided on the issue yourselves. That was sure one pissed-off genie that you let out of its bottle, and now you are never going to get it to go back in.
I don't blame you for it; I don't think you realized how partisan and polarized your up-till-then surprisingly moderate board base was. But again, with the benefit of hindsight... it was a mistake.
Actually, I would compare it more closely to contemporary political discourse, on various web forums, blog comments, et cetera, than anything else. Posters on both sides of the argument tend to be of a fairly determined mindset, tend to discount the views of the other side, and are prone to the sort of straw-man rhetoric that you refer to. I suspect that in both of these cases, too, the underlying intent is not to convince those of the opposing side, but rather, to sway the opinion of the undecided bystanders.This leads me to wonder, then, if this is not so much a phenomena relating to gamers, but rather, to internet discourse as a whole.
Well, I think it's a part of our modern discourse overall, but I worry about it more for gamers, who will soon be the last target for small-minded insults by the masses since Political Correctness has removed every other target rather than teaching people that insults, as a rule, are counter-productive. Keep your eyes out for any network TV or media reference to D&D players ... you'll see it out there. ;-)
|
|
However, with 20/20 hindsight, it must be said that Paizo invited in this debacle when you expressly solicited opinions regarding what your reader base would prefer you to do when you were still undecided on the issue yourselves. That was sure one pissed-off genie that you let out of its bottle, and now you are never going to get it to go back in.
I don't blame you for it; I don't think you realized how partisan and polarized your up-till-then surprisingly moderate board base was. But again, with the benefit of hindsight... it was a mistake.
I don't really see how Paizo could have avoided it, in all honesty. The 'Edition Wars' seems to have touched on every major D&D based or related board that I've seen, so far. I think this kettle would have boiled over regardless.
I think, for the most part, you are on track here. The problem with things settling into a stalemate, however, falls apart when posters are posting less to prove their point about [insert edition or point or opinion] and more simply to "win" an argument. I don't think this is a product of fanatacism so much as personal desires to pound chests and actually say "I win; you lose".
I teach rhetoric in my classes, and I have seen more straw man attacks on these boards (and these are the only boards I frequent, so they are probably on the others too) than I ever see in freshmen rough drafts. Too many people misrepresent (intentionally or otherwise) someone else's statements in order to set up a "win". I have to wonder whether the underlying warrants of these arguments are rules-based of self-image based.
I don't mean this to be insulting to anyone. I just worry that these are the reasons so many gamers are accused of lacking social skills and thus excluded from other social opportunities in society. If we want to ever be taken seriously or accepted as anything but fodder for jokes about geeks, each of us needs to make a conscious effort to avoid "posting to win" and straw man rhetoric.
Your comments reminded me of a quote I saw on the WotC boards.
Actually, in the real world, people having conversations don't cite logical fallacies to support their points. That happens in only two places: colleges and the internet, neither of which even vaguely resemble the real world.
Believe me, I've been to it.
:D
I don't really see how Paizo could have avoided it, in all honesty. The 'Edition Wars' seems to have touched on every major D&D based or related board that I've seen, so far. I think this kettle would have boiled over regardless.
Oh, the debate would have happened here regardless, but it became more heated and broad here than on, say the EN World or GitP boards because, instead of simply howling at the moon, the posters thought their arguments would help sway Paizo one way or another. Consequently, they became more vocal and adamant in their opinions than they might have otherwise, and tried to shout down deiffering opinions more to leave the impression that theirs was the One True Opinion shared by the consensus of Paizo readership.
Now that the decision has been made, the posts are pretty much pointless and back to howling at the moon, but flame wars tend to rage out of control long after the tinder that started them is consumed.