|
L5R has its own 4e coming out this yearWait. It is? Links, please!
Here's an announcement on ICv2 which I'm uncertain why AEG hasn't posted any news about it. I know it was announced at GenCon and heard it while I was there working for Paizo doing PFS.
|
|
Here's an announcement on ICv2 which I'm uncertain why AEG hasn't posted any news about it. I know it was announced at GenCon and heard it while I was there working for Paizo doing PFS.L5R has its own 4e coming out this yearWait. It is? Links, please!
Coolio. Thanks!
A response from Goodman...
http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=26994#p26994
I didn't quite expect so many responses. I was "just saying." Next time maybe I'll ask if I should publish my modules in Hebrew or Arabic -- might as well try to bring peace to the Middle East while I discuss Pathfinder and 4E in the same breath...
Regarding what makes a good module, the debate "out there" is the same debate we've had many times "in here." Is it the story, characters, and plot, which are easily adapted to any system? Or is it the tactics, statistics, and rules elements, which are more specific to a system? I lean more toward the former, some other folks are more toward the latter.
It seems from the various posts that the same perspectives exist more broadly. Frankly, this makes me more hesitant to try multi-system support within the same product line. For every customer who appreciates the adaptability, someone else will interpret it as a dilution of the native ruleset.
I'm also not interested in being the lightning rod for the edition wars. Apparently if I support Pathfinder it means 4E sales are terrible, whereas my ongoing support for Chaosium's BRP means 4E sales are okay? I run Goodman Games for fun, not profit, and when people post vitriolic messages because I do (or don't) support 4E (or Pathfinder), I have to ask myself, "Do I really want to be involved in this?" I sincerely wish the nature of the debate were much more civil.
I did like the suggestion of a DCC RPG. Great minds think alike.
_________________
Joseph Goodman
Goodman Games
www.goodman-games.com
Hee-hee!
Thanks for sharing, Sunderstone.
Since we are back on topic again, I wanted to point out the Legend of the Five Rings setting and source books, some of which were published as two separate books and some of which were dual-statted for both d20 and AEG's own system. I thought the dual-statted books were fine, and I am sure some of the people posting here have used them before. If done right, a module or source book containing stats for two systems should be fine and work well, and if not done right if would be a horrible mess and failure.
I purchased some of those later books from Alderac with the dual-statted system, although primarily to support my oriental 3.5 campaign, and it did not hamper or otherwise persuade me from not purchasing similar material in the future.
|
There appears to be people trying to prove the other guy "wrong," and still venting on their edition wars issues wherever they can; Let it go. Find Buddha or a bottle of Jack or something.
If someone wants is considering dual statting something then whatever their reasons, even if contradictory to what they have stated before, is moot. Opinion changes, information changes. Trying to foist one's own preceptions by interpretting what someone else has said is petty at best.
|
|
A response from Goodman...
http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=26994#p26994
Yeah. Told him I'd be interested and willing to purchase/download stats 3.x/Pathfinder stats for current 4E DCC as well as systemless mods/settings. I came late into the 3.x game and only became aware of the excellent DCC lineup towards the end of 3.5.
I really wish people wouldn't feel so hurt if someone said something that goes against their own feelings. Maybe we all should work or growing thicker skins.
We are in a very niche market of gaming. I will take whatever product I can get. I'm personally moving more towards the OSR way of playing D&D, so I would like some generic modules.
Case in point: James Raggi of Lamentations of the Flame Princess http://lotfp.blogspot.com/ has written what I think are some of the most atmospheric modules I have read in years. And he makes his modules generic enough to be used by all of the pre 3rd edition games.
I know the divide between Pathfinder and 4th is much wider than the divide between the pre 3rd versions of D&D, but I think its possible to write a really good adventure that is generic.
To me, the story is more important than the crunchy bits. That's why I buy adventures, so I don't have to come up with a story to run. I can easily enough go to the core books and pick out the crunchy stuff and make a link of encounters to add up to an adventure.
So Joe, make some generic adventures and market them as playable with all editions of D&D with an old school feel.
I think the encounter system and systems are to out of sinc to do what he wants. His product will be shoddy, and the feel and play will be all over the place. I think he should keep 4e made mods, 4e and if he wants to make something for pathfinder he should not try to duelstat it, which might work for settings but would be a mess with adventures
|
Okay I have been giving this some thought, especially after reading his reply.
He said that he thinks what makes an adventure good is the story, plot, characters rather than the mechanics. I agree 100% with him. Though I can see for others that not being the case. So, this is just my own opinion here. One of the very best adventures I have seen in ages is the Witchfire Trilogy from Privateer Press. The story rocks, and the characters are very compelling.
Now my concern would be that the adventure has a great story, plot and characters, but then the mechanics messes it up. Comparing adversaries between 4e and 3.x is problematic. The monsters are no longer on equal power levels, and while the story may call for an ogre in a certain place, it might be too tough for 3.x or 4e or whatever system you are using for that level. So now you have to rewrite the story to accommodate the differing power levels.
Can it be done? Certainly. Can it be one easily? No, but it can be done.
So, the question is would I buy a product that splits the mechanics. I would say it depends. IF the adventure is still good, even with the split mechanics, and there is not a ton of conversions needed (I never run straight from the book anyway so SOME converting is fine), then yes I would buy it.
I am not interested in buying only from companies that only support Pathfinder and not 4e, I'm not interested in only supporting publishers that pledged to support Pathfinder from the beginning. Honestly if WOTC published a good Pathfinder product I would buy it (like THAT would ever happen).
So the key to getting me to buy, is to make sure it is a good product. No politics and no head games.
|
I absolutely agree about a good story being able to transcend systems. However, I agree with Krome about the idea that improperly handled mechanics can screw that up. It can be done, though so I can see why a publisher would be tempted to do so.
That said, I think it is important to look at what kind of modules we are talking about here. DCC isn't heavy on story, at least not in the same way a Paizo mod is. It mostly involves a dungeon and the monsters, tricks, and traps you find inside. While there is likely a Maguffin and some chance to use diplomacy, that isn't the main thrust of these adventures.
Part of what makes these adventures fun is the old school design aesthetic in which even the very environment is hostile to the party. It is about resource management, cleverness, and some amount of tactical skill. Many of the DCC modules are tough, and purposefully so.
With the differences in encounter design I would say that the systemless option might be a hard one to pull off, even harder than converting simple story and background in a mechanical sense. Both systems operate under different assumptions on what is needed to challenge the PCs, what is acceptable in terms of combat area, and how traps and tricks are used within a scenario/encounter.
One of the main complaints I saw concerning the first 4e DCCs was the statement they suffered because they were obviously converted from 3e to 4e. Mind you, these complaints were few but they did come up in a few reviews I read. While I was running 4e I actually avoided the first DCC modules for the system because of this statement. I wanted stuff designed for 4e because the encounter design assumptions were being taken into account with those kinds of products.
But then, I have another side of me that says there are enough similarities that designing a module for both systems could be done, so long as certain conditions were met. There are "bridges" between the two. Sure encounters might require fewer creatures during conversion or trap mechanics might have to be tweaked. But there is enough of 3e still present in 4e that it could be done with only a few road bumps.
Will it be successful? I am not entirely sure. There are a lot of factors at play. For my part, my decision would rest on the quality of the design. I would be hesitant though, until I saw some balanced reviews or other material that gives me the tools to make a proper decision.
Concerning the issues with Goodman Games, I am sympathetic with those who are unhappy with the company. I have my own thoughts on the last year of business but they won't enter into my purchasing decisions. Essentially, I don't feel like Joe Goodman broke my confidence as a consumer. But I can see how others might feel it has been for them.
If they continue to make 4e products I would still look at their Pathfinder material, because I don't harbor any great anger over 4e. So far, the Goodman Game systemless material has been fairly good. I have truly enjoyed Points of Light I and II and I can't wait to see what the Dungeon Alphabet has in store. While I have more than enough materials for my Pathfinder game we have some amazing third party people creating a wave of great product that I simply cannot resist. I am sucker for the DCC line so I would like to wait and see what Goodman does.
Well, bottom line is what does the gaming community have to lose if he tries? We might as well be encouraging and see what he comes out with.
The only thing more painful than loosing Goodman Games to 4e was their dragging Blackdirge away with them.
I wouldn't say that Goodman dragged me away - I went quite willingly. =] However, I'll admit, it does suck that I lost some great supporters and customers, like yourself, when I made the switch to 4E. It was unavoidable collateral damage that I hope to repair very soon.
By the way, DF, you might want to check out the updated list of companies that are or will be supporting Pathfinder. ;-]
Pathfinder Compatibility Registry
BD
I like to see how that list keeps growing.
Psst, Joel, check the list.
|
|
Psst, Joel, check the list.
YOW.
Blackdirge Publishing (Aeryn Rudel)
Blackdirge Publishing (Aeryn Rudel)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/BlackdirgePublishing
At first, I'll be primarily publishing bestiary products, with an emphasis on nuts-and-bolts monsters such as animals and vermin. I'm currently working on a product that will expand the selection of dinosaurs and prehistoric animals found in the PF Bestiary. This product will also feature rules for PCs, such as carrying capacity for mounts, stats for animal companions, and relevant information for spellcasters (where the critters fit on the Summon Nature’s Ally Table, for example).
Down the line, I'll be publishing small products that feature new monster templates, prestige classes for martial characters, and an assortment of short, focused player-option material.
NICE.
Psst, Joel, check the list.YOW.
Blackdirge Publishing (Aeryn Rudel)
Blackdirge Publishing (Aeryn Rudel)
http://www.facebook.com/pages/edit/%3Fid%3D176657892229%23/BlackdirgePublis hingAt first, I'll be primarily publishing bestiary products, with an emphasis on nuts-and-bolts monsters such as animals and vermin. I'm currently working on a product that will expand the selection of dinosaurs and prehistoric animals found in the PF Bestiary. This product will also feature rules for PCs, such as carrying capacity for mounts, stats for animal companions, and relevant information for spellcasters (where the critters fit on the Summon Nature’s Ally Table, for example).
Down the line, I'll be publishing small products that feature new monster templates, prestige classes for martial characters, and an assortment of short, focused player-option material.
NICE.
I just realized that the section you bolded kind of sounds like I'm working for Paizo. What I meant is that I would be expanding on the selection of prehistoric critters found in the PF bestiary. The product I mentioned is a Blackdirge Publishing product; it has no affiliation with Paizo other than my use of the compatibility license.
BD
|
|
I just realized that the section you bolded kind of sounds like I'm working for Paizo. That is not the case. The product I mentioned is a Blackdirge Publishing product; it has no affiliation with Paizo other than my use of the compatibility license.BD
EDIT: Didn't even think about that. Just want to emphasize you're writing a PF-compatible product. It's been how many months (year?) since you published that 4E bestiary? (Good work, by the way.)
Didn't even think about that. Just want to emphasize you're writing a PF-compatible product in addition to your (excellent) work with the current D&D ruleset.
I just realized that the section you bolded kind of sounds like I'm working for Paizo. That is not the case. The product I mentioned is a Blackdirge Publishing product; it has no affiliation with Paizo other than my use of the compatibility license.BD
Okay, cool. I just wanted to make sure. =]
Thanks
BD
"I'm currently working on a product that will offer an expanded selection of dinosaurs and prehistoric animals in addition to those found in the PF Bestiary."
An editorial suggestion, if you don't mind the presumption.
|
|
Well, bottom line is what does the gaming community have to lose if he tries? We might as well be encouraging and see what he comes out with.
Ditto! I agree, we should be welcoming him back into the fold with open arms.
Blackridge, dude that just sucks you making a monster book. I am a sucker for monster books and have felt there has been a serious lack of support for non-monster animals especially. Can you do me one favor? Look at more threats for rivers. I mean seriously if adventurers want to avoid random encounters they should just travel by river.
Darn... okay I'll buy it... when it is going to be ready for sale...
"I'm currently working on a product that will offer an expanded selection of dinosaurs and prehistoric animals in addition to those found in the PF Bestiary."
An editorial suggestion, if you don't mind the presumption.
That's a lot less ambiguous than what I had before, so I've changed the wording to reflect your suggestion. =]
Thanks
BD
No problem, BD. Let's see what prehistoric madness you'll unleash.
I really like the idea of "companionizing" some other animals that didn't get the companion treatment before. The more companions the better.
Now if someone would just convert the ooze whisperer and vermin heart abilities by creating "companionized" oozes and vermin . . .
|
|
My only real issue with the idea of a dual-stat product, besides Vancian spellcasting or the lack thereof, is the mechanics of minions. Now if he was to include the idea of, say, Pathfinder monsters with hp only equal to their Con scores rather than full hp where 4e minions would go, that I think could really be workable.
You would almost have to have an area that has very general description, like Opening Corridor of the Orc Caves that avoids any kind of numbers or the like, just the general description of the area and that there are "some" orcs here.
Then you could have the completely different set up for both encounters, given that there are likely to be twice as many orcs in the 4E encounter, for example.
Yes, you could explain the same overall plan for the Orc King, and describe his personality the same way, but in Pathfinder, he'd have a couple of bodyguards, whereas he might have a bunch of minions, again, in 4E, for example.
That having been said, there are some higher level concerns for plots that would make even the "story" side of things specific to a given system. For example, a 4E adventure might call for a long trek written up as a Skill Challenge at a level where Pathfider characters can just teleport, or the adventure may assume that the PCs can't do any intelligence on a villain, but in Pathfinder they can still scry the BBEG.
I know I've read some people that have said that they have no trouble converting across systems, and I don't doubt that, but just like customizing a game to your own players, its always easier to do these things in your own campaign because you really, really like the overall gist of the adventure. To do it "officially" in the product might be more of a challenge for a company.
|
|
Well, bottom line is what does the gaming community have to lose if he tries? We might as well be encouraging and see what he comes out with.
I think that is absolutely true. Being open about this concept is a good thing, despite my mind being split on the subject. That mental division really isn't going to stop me from checking out the product.
I would be more than happy to have Goodman material for Pathfinder.
|
|
My only real issue with the idea of a dual-stat product, besides Vancian spellcasting or the lack thereof, is the mechanics of minions. Now if he was to include the idea of, say, Pathfinder monsters with hp only equal to their Con scores rather than full hp where 4e minions would go, that I think could really be workable.
Huh...I never thought of that before. I assume when you refer to score you mean bonus, right? Because that is an interesting concept. They still likely fall in one hit, and a CR adjustment would be in order, but that is an interesting way to handle minions in Pathfinder. I think you just hit upon something there.
|
|
The only thing more painful than loosing Goodman Games to 4e was their dragging Blackdirge away with them.I wouldn't say that Goodman dragged me away - I went quite willingly. =] However, I'll admit, it does suck that I lost some great supporters and customers, like yourself, when I made the switch to 4E. It was unavoidable collateral damage that I hope to repair very soon.
By the way, DF, you might want to check out the updated list of companies that are or will be supporting Pathfinder. ;-]
Pathfinder Compatibility Registry
BD
Now I am extremely happy. This is good news indeed.
"I'm currently working on a product that will offer an expanded selection of dinosaurs and prehistoric animals in addition to those found in the PF Bestiary."
An editorial suggestion, if you don't mind the presumption.
That's a lot less ambiguous than what I had before, so I've changed the wording to reflect your suggestion. =]
Thanks
BD
Welcome back, Blackdirge! ~grins~
|
I think Goodman's and perhaps other 3pp problems were that they ported pre-existing lines to new systems. Changing from 2 to 3.5 no biggie and in hindsight 3.5 to PFRPG would be the next step.
Taking a 3rd product line and push it into 4e was a mistake in my mine. It would have been better to come up with a new line for 4e.
I see that alot of folks are pushing for generic products that can be used for anything... I say no. I prefer things to be separate so I can choose what I purchase and use. I understand that it might be an attempt for gamer unity but it will fail. Better to expect the differences for what they are and support the modern RPGer... for me that who is approaching middle age and works full time. Wants to make the most of his spare time instead of spending hours working with material that need to be converted. I want material that is PnP.
Plug in play changed the nature of computing as well as win7 as an OS. 3pp please draw a line in the sand and go with it... some of the advances from Paizo have made my life easier and enable me to play more.
|
|
I think Goodman's and perhaps other 3pp problems were that they ported pre-existing lines to new systems. Changing from 2 to 3.5 no biggie and in hindsight 3.5 to PFRPG would be the next step.
Taking a 3rd product line and push it into 4e was a mistake in my mine. It would have been better to come up with a new line for 4e.
I see that alot of folks are pushing for generic products that can be used for anything... I say no. I prefer things to be separate so I can choose what I purchase and use. I understand that it might be an attempt for gamer unity but it will fail. Better to expect the differences for what they are and support the modern RPGer... for me that who is approaching middle age and works full time. Wants to make the most of his spare time instead of spending hours working with material that need to be converted. I want material that is PnP.
Plug in play changed the nature of computing as well as win7 as an OS. 3pp please draw a line in the sand and go with it... some of the advances from Paizo have made my life easier and enable me to play more.
Honestly the more I think about the differences between 4e and Pathfinder the more I think unlikely that it could be done well, without being prohibitively large and thereby expensive. The Vancian difference alone is a pretty big mechanics problem to overcome.
Again though, I am all for someone who wants to try it to go for it. But I won't buy something just smashed together. The quality of the product will likely have to be higher than most others I would consider.
Honestly I think he would be better off just creating a Pathfinder only line.
|
|
The Vancian difference alone is a pretty big mechanics problem to overcome.
Speaking of magic and differences, what do y'all (not just Krome) think Green Ronin's Freeport for True20 and 3.x? Specifically, the Freeport Companions, one for True20 and one for 3.x. Or how about the incomplete Rise of the Runelords adaptation for True20 available here for free on Paizo? Both systems are, in many ways, as different from D&D 4e is from Pathfinder: True20 does not use Vancian magic; hitpoints; there are no attacks of opportunities; Action Points, in the form of Conviction, are used; there's no experience points, etc. Major mechanical difference but Green Ronin seemed to have pulled it off. Why not Goodman?
True 20 is kind of "outcome based" in that you can tailor it to tell a certain story. Its not as tactically based. I think you can translate the tactical element "down" if you will, but not "across" to another tactically based system. Even at that, I do think there were aspects of the True 20 conversion that didn't quite feel exactly the same as the 3.5 version of the adventure.
When discussing sourcebooks, there is a world of difference from adventures. You can do a system neutral campaign setting a lot easier than you can do a system neutral adventure, in my opinion.
In fact, I was just today discussing how you can use a lot of Star Wars sources as sourcebooks (for example the Essential Atlas, or the Essential Chronology books) in any version of Star Wars RPGs that you play, because system is just an means to an end in that situation.
On the other hand, it would take a bit of work to specifically translate a WEG adventure into RCR or Saga. Its not impossible, but its not a simple matter either.
I think what perplexes me about this is that I'm not sure why the question seems to be that he wants to develop an adventure in 4E and adapt it to other systems. To me that implies that Goodman considers it "easy" to rewrite the stats for other editions, which implies that its not going to be done thoughtfully.
Another thing I'd throw out about recent Freeport products are that they were designed to be setting neutral first and foremost, then further defined from there.
If this were just a matter of Goodman talking about doing some Pathfinder adventures, I think most people would have been curious to see what comes out. Paizo staff and Wolfgang Baur have both commented that it would take a lot of work to convert an adventure to multiple systems, but Goodman seems to imply that you can do it as almost an afterthought that might take a bit more work.
Just throwing in my obligatory +1 post that BD's coming into the PF fold. Here's to seeing what beasties he has in store for us to be afraid of. Be very afraid of. :)
|
|
Why not Goodman?
Well, my concern is that Green Ronin has displayed a repeated ability to adapt from one mechanics system to another, even writing their own systems on the fly (it seems) from time to time. Good man has... converted from one version of D&D to the new one, then stopped publishing under the old one altogether. Flexibility hasn't been a strong suit he's displayed thus far.
Not saying he can't or won't prove able to adapt and be flexible in terms of rules sets, just that he doesn't have Green Ronin's track record.
Just throwing in my obligatory +1 post that BD's coming into the PF fold. Here's to seeing what beasties he has in store for us to be afraid of. Be very afraid of. :)
Blackdirge, woohoo ! We missed you ! *hugs*
Now I am extremely happy. This is good news indeed.
Welcome back, Blackdirge! ~grins~
Thanks for the support, guys. You should start seeing Blackdirge Pathfinder products on the digital shelves in the next couple of weeks.
BD
You should start seeing Blackdirge Pathfinder products on the digital shelves in the next couple of weeks.
That is outstanding news... I considered Blackdirge Publishing to be one of the best 3e 3pp publishers out there. In fact the only 3pp 4e material I have bought (I don't go for 4e, so was buying for the possible flavor boost) was Blackdirge. So, is our favorite, eponymous lich scheduled to make a reappearance?
|
By the way, DF, you might want to check out the updated list of companies that are or will be supporting Pathfinder. ;-]
Pathfinder Compatibility Registry
BD
...woo-hoo!!! Oh man, that made my day! I really, really look forward to getting your stuff again.
(now if only someone would go revive Ed Bourelle)
|
|
Actually 99% of those books were d20 Rokugan done by WotC or 3PPs and not AEG. Completed before AEG bought or fully aquired the license from WotC. L5R itself was never dual stated. Basically WotC used the world as a d20 setting for OA and that was it. The upside was they introduced tons of people to the actual L5R game system as well as the CCG, which is what AEG really thrives on.
Actually, they were all printed by AEG. WotC printed the D20 Rokugan book, but AEG printed all of the dual-stat sourcebooks (a full line of Clan books, plus a monster book, and some "class" specific books); I've got them all in my closet. The books were fine, with 80%+ of the books system generic fluff, but of the remaining space was divided between regurgitating the same material for d20 and L5R 2nd Edition.
|
|
I don't blame Mr. Goodman for going with 4e. He had to make a decision for his company and I am sure it was not an easy one. As a result of this decision, I don't purchase anything from them because I don't play 4e. That really bums me out because I really love the products that he put out. The DCC adventures were awesome. I don't hold any ill will towards Goodman Games.
I would never waste money on a generic adventure that required downloaded stats. But if Goodman made a Pathfinder specific adventure line, I would definately buy it.
(now if only someone would go revive Ed Bourelle)
Have you considered Monte Cook's site Dungeonaday.com? If I understand correctly, Ed Bourelle is doing the maps for that...
|
|
(now if only someone would go revive Ed Bourelle)Have you considered Monte Cook's site Dungeonaday.com? If I understand correctly, Ed Bourelle is doing the maps for that...
He is indeed. I highly recommend that to any GM even remotely interested in dungeons. While the megadungeon is cool, the site can be used for so much more than just the unified dungeon.
I think he should do separate product lines for Pathfinder and 4E. It seems there are enough customers for both.
I don't have any interest for a product that I have to print out stats separately for it. The Pathfinder specific stuff I would be interested in.