|
Right now what I enjoy most about Pathfinder, is the richness of the modules, and how seamlessly they integrate with one another.
Even if I don't want to run avery single part of every single module, I really appreciate the cohesiveness of the whole, and how additional ideas spring into my mind thanks to this.
I don't believe this could work without the world of Golarion.
Kudos, guys !
Replace the word "better" with "other" and I think you'll get a less controversial version of what Arnwyn is trying to say.
:D But controversy is much more fun!
I think that Arnwyn is trying to say that, contrary to James Jacobs' assertion, modules and adventure paths CAN sell, even without a campaign setting book. I think that Arnwyn is saying that GMs have always adapted modules to settings other than those for which the modules were written, and that GMs will continue to do so for as long as RPGs, as we know them, are around.
Almost, but not quite! I do actually very much agree with James' assertion that it's always best to write an adventure with a setting in mind - heck, James has been saying that since the Dungeon magazine days (often using Greyhawk as the example), and I totally agree with him, both then and now (and I never used Greyhawk - but the Dungeon magazine mods were easy to adapt to... anything... else, so he and his team were doing something right).
I'm just a little (read: a lot) less 'baby out with the bathwater', here. "Might as well quit publishing adventures" is a bit rich for me. One can keep the APs (heck, AFAIC, we're already inundated with setting material already in those) even if there are few actual campaign setting books. (And Greyhawk was expanded mostly through modules, after all...)
Your conclusion, which I will repeat here:
"GMs have always adapted modules to settings other than those for which the modules were written, and that GMs will continue to do so for as long as RPGs, as we know them, are around"
... is spot on, and Paizo would do well to remember that. As much as the fanboys will try to frantically deny it (just as they did in the old days), more people play their own settings than published ones. Sorry if that hurts... certain... peoples' sensibilities!
And, back to the topic of this thread (more controversy!):
I just wish more care and thought went into the setting book in the first place. There's enough threads that mention: oh, we're de-emphasizing this, that, etc that I really have to wonder what control was put into the first book, and who the hell wrote it in the first place?
|
As much as the fanboys will try to frantically deny it (just as they did in the old days), more people play their own settings than published ones. Sorry if that hurts... certain peoples'... sensibilities!
Controversy is fun and all that, but do you have any empirical data proving the above statement ?
And for what it's worth, from feedback I've been getting, there's a lot more people playing Golarion that Arnwyn seems to think...
I hope no one misinterpretted my remarks as an insult to Golarion. It's the only setting I've used this year. (And, incidentally, Pathfinder RPG is the only RPG I've played this year.) Even when I ran parts of the "Coin" trilogy of modules (which uses the Kingdoms of Kalamar setting), I set it in Garund, and adapted it to PFRPG.
But there can be no denying that some people prefer other settings, and adapt PF modules to other settings. You can just browse these messageboards for proof.
|
I've been developing/editing adventures for more than 7 years, and have been writing them for publication about 25 years, and in that time one thing I've realized is that, while many GMs WILL adapt an adventure to their own choice for setting, it's ALWAYS best to have a setting in mind when you're writing an adventure.
I agree, it's just as easy to convert a module built with a specific setting in mind as it is to convert a setting neutral one.
Unless your assumed setting is pretty far out there (for example Eberron) there are basically no negatives to having an assumed setting and for those who use the setting it makes their job that much easier.
I ought to leave it to people more knowledgeable than myself to answer this, but...
I just wish more care and thought went into the setting book in the first place. There's enough threads that mention: oh, we're de-emphasizing this, that, etc that I really have to wonder what control was put into the first book, and who the hell wrote it in the first place?
I believe that the Pathfinder Campaign Setting book was written under a very tight deadline. This time around, the Paizo staff members want to take the time to write it to their satisfaction.
Okay, with so many people agreeing, I feel like playing devil's advocate, and arguing. I don't actually believe in what I'm about to say, but...
I agree, it's just as easy to convert a module built with a specific setting in mind as it is to convert a setting neutral one.
Unless your assumed setting is pretty far out there (for example Eberron) there are basically no negatives to having an assumed setting and for those who use the setting it makes their job that much easier.
One disadvantage of setting-specific modules, as opposed to setting-neutral ones, is that sometimes, the author of a setting-specific module assumes the reader has knowledge of the setting. Sometimes, setting-specific modules refer to organizations, historical events, or places that will mean nothing to a newbie reader. It's not always easy to determine which references might be important, and which might not be, especially in a long series of modules which might take so long to read that the GM may start running the series before finishing to read it.
But what the heck. My argument only indicates that a module can help to sell a setting... which just makes more money for the company. How can I argue with that?
Chief Technical Officer
|
I ought to leave it to people more knowledgeable than myself to answer this, but...I just wish more care and thought went into the setting book in the first place. There's enough threads that mention: oh, we're de-emphasizing this, that, etc that I really have to wonder what control was put into the first book, and who the hell wrote it in the first place?I believe that the Pathfinder Campaign Setting book was written under a very tight deadline. This time around, the Paizo staff members want to take the time to write it to their satisfaction.
The biggest issues with the first Campaign Setting book are about timelines more than deadlines—it was the first big book we wrote, and it came during the early days of developing our setting. We just plain didn't know as much about the direction we wanted to take things—or the direction you want us to take things—as we do now.
One thing that needs to be pointed out, though: a lot of people are interested in talking about what's changing right now, and that's perhaps leading to an inaccurate picture. We're changing the presentation, and we're changing the emphasis in some places, but as far as world design goes, we're really not changing very much at all. We did a *lot* of stuff right the first time, and it doesn't *need* to be undone or redone. It just needs to be updated to the current rules, and augmented with more detail in some places.
|
|
One disadvantage of setting-specific modules, as opposed to setting-neutral ones, is that sometimes, the author of a setting-specific module assumes the reader has knowledge of the setting. Sometimes, setting-specific modules refer to organizations, historical events, or places that will mean nothing to a newbie reader. It's not always easy to determine which references might be important, and which might not be, especially in a long series of modules which might take so long to read that the GM may start running the series before finishing to read it.
But what the heck. My argument only indicates that a module can help to sell a setting... which just makes more money for the company. How can I argue with that?
A module should use the campaign setting to accent the module, not as a crutch. When you are writing an adventure expecting the GM or the players have specific knowledge of the campaign setting you are doing it wrong. An adventure (or even an AP) should always be self contained, I can't really think of any situations where Paizo has failed in this.
There are exceptions to this, I've seen some good Eberron modules that pretty much require a very Eberron-like setting. Anything like that should pretty clearly be labeled that they require the campaign setting.
Look at the Paizo Adventure Paths, to run Kingmaker you need the core rulebook and the AP. Having the Campaign Setting is a very nice supplement but not required.
|
Look at the Paizo Adventure Paths, to run Kingmaker you need the core rulebook and the AP. Having the Campaign Setting is a very nice supplement but not required.
But Kingmaker isn't a module. Kingmarker is a campaign. Sure I suppose you could grab one volume of an adventure path at random and run it as an adventure, but it's like watching Revenge of the Sith without having seen any other Star Wars movie before.
Show me a module, from the module line, that has this issue.
|
|
Look at the Paizo Adventure Paths, to run Kingmaker you need the core rulebook and the AP. Having the Campaign Setting is a very nice supplement but not required.But Kingmaker isn't a module. Kingmarker is a campaign. Sure I suppose you could grab one volume of an adventure path at random and run it as an adventure, but it's like watching Revenge of the Sith without having seen any other Star Wars movie before.
Show me a module, from the module line, that has this issue.
Umm... what issue?
And, back to the topic of this thread (more controversy!):
I just wish more care and thought went into the setting book in the first place. There's enough threads that mention: oh, we're de-emphasizing this, that, etc that I really have to wonder what control was put into the first book, and who the hell wrote it in the first place?
I have to admit that having 29 different authors contributing stuff (if the listing is correct) didn't do it any favours in terms of coherence. Still an interesting book, though.
P.S. Were there really "essays on world-building written by Robert J. Kuntz and R.A. Salvatore" in the Campaign Setting? I don't remember seeing them, but maybe I just missed them.
And, back to the topic of this thread (more controversy!):
I just wish more care and thought went into the setting book in the first place. There's enough threads that mention: oh, we're de-emphasizing this, that, etc that I really have to wonder what control was put into the first book, and who the hell wrote it in the first place?
I take it this is just post-stirring? Seems to me that success is a marker of quality, in this case. That it can be improved, there is no doubt. That Paizo will in fact improve it, as it has continued to develop it, I have no doubt.
|
Creative Director
|
I have to admit that having 29 different authors contributing stuff (if the listing is correct) didn't do it any favours in terms of coherence. Still an interesting book, though.
Part of our job here at Paizo as developer is to take something that was written by many authors and rewrite or reshape their words so that it feels like the overall book (or in the case of an Adventure Path, an entire campaign) was written by one person. Having multiple authors create a RPG book is actually very very common, especially if you factor in the element of a developer having to rewrite or expand upon an author's manuscript turnover.
P.S. Were there really "essays on world-building written by Robert J. Kuntz and R.A. Salvatore" in the Campaign Setting? I don't remember seeing them, but maybe I just missed them.
Their contributions are on page 3 of the book.
P.S. Were there really "essays on world-building written by Robert J. Kuntz and R.A. Salvatore" in the Campaign Setting? I don't remember seeing them, but maybe I just missed them.Their contributions are on page 3 of the book.
Ah, now I think I remember; they were kind of like editorials.