Not sure this is the proper subforum for this, but I saw this little gem pop up in my Facebook feed today:
>WoW RPG dev on Pathfinderization of WoW RPG<
As a fan of both MMORPGs and TTRPGs, I am happy that WoW RPG will be going forward using Pathfinder as its base rules platform.
Is this a belated April fools joke or is this real?
Edit: dang! WoW! Alrighty then.
|
Looks to me like just a WOW "forumite" making a Pathfinder-based homerule set for WOW and sharing it with other WOW "forumites". Nothing like official development or anything.
Posting it like this is like saying Pathfinder is putting out 4e modules because you read about Scott Betts' conversions to 4e in the 4e forum.
Hopefully, these clases will be true to the MMO and fit easily into PF, instead of re-working how base classes work and such.
That was my biggest turn off to the original and the eq2 rpg.
Looks to me like just a WOW "forumite" making a Pathfinder-based homerule set for WOW and sharing it with other WOW "forumites". Nothing like official development or anything.
Posting it like this is like saying Pathfinder is putting out 4e modules because you read about Scott Betts' conversions to 4e in the 4e forum.
I apologize if I implied through bad communication that this was some sort of 'official' posting. Though, the poster is a little more than a 'forumite' if you trust his veracity, having been involved in developing a 4e ruleset for FFG and WoW RPG.
I am not sure what the licensing issues will be, or what form this will take. I merely posted this as an interesting item, having an interest in the WoW MMORPG and Pathfinder. My post is in no manner to be taken as a dig at 4e, or its proponents.
Does that mean Pathfinder, not 4e, is the WoW of tabletop games? ;p
[Snark]
Does that mean Pathfinder, not 4e, is the WoW of tabletop games? ;p
[/Snark]
Fixed that for you.
|
I'd be fine with that.
Have to admit, I got mighty excited to see this. I was all sold a new release that hopefully wouldn't include shenanigans like allegedly NG Blood Elf knights lynching every Troll they see(WHAT). That and having that brand pick PF's ruleset would have been a huge win.
Still, it's cool to see one of its developers continuing to support the game. I'm keeping an eye on it.
This is one of two things:
1) A joke...
or
2) a Feeble attempt to link MMO Feel with Pathfinder and off of 4th ed.
When somebody...who is suppose to know does not even know the rules of Pathfinder...meh...I mean races in Pathfinder to recieve a penalties...
Not that you could not make a RPG based on WoW with Pathfinder.
But if you want to make a table top MMO...4th ed all the way. Not to insult 4th ed fans or anything but I don't get how you could fail in making a RPG out of WoW using 4th ed rules...the game stole heavily from WoW.
sigh
Here we go...
Go where?
Go where?sigh
Here we go...
Yeah...I know...
I was trying to diffuse things into humor before it began...
"That is how it always begins...very small." -Egg Shen, Tour Bus, Bus for Tourists, San Francisco Chinatown.
Isn't this thread better suited for the Conversions or the House Rules/Homebrew forums, since what's being discussed is not an official release from any 3PP?
Go where?sigh
Here we go...
To the land of ass-pulled stupid arguments, I think.
At least, that's what the program said.
Go where?sigh
Here we go...
To the land of ass-pulled stupid arguments, I think.
At least, that's what the program said.
Sorry if the whole post just rung false with me....heck not to mention that FFG has not even looked at making a OGL product since 3.5 messed up Midnight....
"That is how it always begins...very small." -Egg Shen, Tour Bus, Bus for Tourists, San Francisco Chinatown.
"What? Huh? What'll come out no more?!"
"What? Huh? What'll come out no more?!"
Exactly.
Go where?sigh
Here we go...
To the land of ass-pulled stupid arguments, I think.
At least, that's what the program said.
Sorry if the whole post just rung false with me....heck not to mention that FFG has not even looked at making a OGL product since 3.5 messed up Midnight....
Perhaps, but sometimes certain license holders may decide to pitch their game in a different rules system. Hellfrost through Triple-Ace Games was originally using the Savage Worlds system, but there was a playtest call not too long ago where the author has indicated he was switching the system over to PFRPG.
Personally, I'm curious about the WoW being provided with PFRPG rules. I'm just trying to determine whether it'll end up being an official licensed release through someone or just a community effort in the form of netbooks before pursuing any further.
As a disclaimer, I've never played a single MMORPG. Ever. But I do own several of the WoW d20 books simply for the purpose of gleaning content from it for whatever I decide to brew in my own home games.
I would welcome this as an official deal with Blizzard giving out the license for a Pathfinder conversion. There would be absolutely no downside and could mean nothing but money for Paizo.
The World of Warcraft, which I do play, has a wonderful and varied storyline with its own cosmology and deep, rich history already written in. The RPG, in my mind, would be about taking those elements and creating a world setting. No more, no less.
Bellyaching about game mechanics spilling over is a red herring and/or trolling tactic.
This really ought to be in the general discussion or homebrew subforum, rather than in the Compatibles subforum.
This really ought to be in the general discussion or homebrew subforum, rather than in the Compatibles subforum.
Yeah, I was unsure where to place it. I'm flagging this post to hopefully get Ross or Gary to move it over to a more compatible subforum.
Sorry if the whole post just rung false with me....heck not to mention that FFG has not even looked at making a OGL product since 3.5 messed up Midnight....
I know I'll regret this, but how does a ruleset mess up a campaign setting that was designed under that ruleset?
I know I'll regret this, but how does a ruleset mess up a campaign setting that was designed under that ruleset?Sorry if the whole post just rung false with me....heck not to mention that FFG has not even looked at making a OGL product since 3.5 messed up Midnight....
Release schedule and finished, but unreleased material getting screwed up by 3.5 announcements? I know that adversely affected many 3PPs.
Any books you recommend, Urizen?
I'm not sure I can necessarily 'recommend'; it's more of a matter of what you can get your hands on since I believe they're OOP and some of them are quiet pricey.
In paperback form, I own:
- The Role Playing Game
- Magic & Mayhem
- More Magic & Mayhem
- Manual of Monsters
- Monster Guide
- Alliance & Horde Compendium
All of these support 3.5 edition. I'd like to point out that the A&H Compendium utilizes the mass combat rules from Malhavoc Press' Cry Havoc. This is the only one that's soft-cover; the rest I own are hardcovers.
What I find useful for WoW is that you can toss the contents into a campaign if you're doing steampunk or wanting to include mechs (remember Dragonmech by Goodman Games?)
EDIT: I'm one of those guys that has got a lot of glut with the intent of using them, but have yet to ever GM a game. I essentially like to read and be inspired and take notes. What also appealed to me was that the contents were tastefully done; it's not a half-assed release. Very professional.
I got the whole nine yards including the older Warcraft RPG books and the last book to be published for the WOW RPG... Dark Factions.
I had come across a previous version of the WoW RPG ruleset for 3.0, but I left it on the shelf since I deemed it an unnecessary purchase as I already owned the 3.5 version.
I didn't begin collecting these until 2007.
I know I'll regret this, but how does a ruleset mess up a campaign setting that was designed under that ruleset?Sorry if the whole post just rung false with me....heck not to mention that FFG has not even looked at making a OGL product since 3.5 messed up Midnight....
Actualy the Midnight setting was designed under a heavily altered 3rd edition ruleset. Magic worked completely differently....new races....etc. 3.5 forced them to bring out a updated version of main book and revisited other books. Instead of going forward...they were forced in part to go back and redesign.
My guess since they stopped supporting Midnight shortly after they did the updates and stopped writting things under 3.5 ogl....my guess is that they did not want to use somebody else system to write their RPGs.
Are there legal .pdf copies of these books?
Are there legal .pdf copies of these books?
Yes. However, I have a hard time paying that kind of price for them. When PDFs reaches a certain page count, I want the physical copy. Otherwise, if they were more in line with Paizo's $9.99 pricing for their core products, I'd reconsider.
For both, I'd consider it. Apiece? No way. =)
Prior to 2006, the only 3.x books I had of anything was the 3.0 PHB & DMG and Relic & Rituals. If it weren't by gaming the odds at the chance books turn up in the secondary market (such as Half Price Books), I'd likely have only 1/8th the collection of 3.x books I have now.
The first book I picked up when I started playing again was the Eberron campaign book as that was the campaign being ran when I was invited to participate. It snowballed from there.
When 3e came out, it was often and loudly criticized for being nothing more then Diablo as a tabletop game. This in spite of 2e having the official Diablo roleplaying book.
3e had the actual World of Warcraft books, but 4e gets painted with the brush.
Personally I'm holding out to see what Blizzard game actually does get a 4e book so we can start predicting what 5e will be called ;p
When 3e came out, it was often and loudly criticized for being nothing more then Diablo as a tabletop game. This in spite of 2e having the official Diablo roleplaying book.
3e had the actual World of Warcraft books, but 4e gets painted with the brush.
Personally I'm holding out to see what Blizzard game actually does get a 4e book so we can start predicting what 5e will be called ;p
I don't ever remeber 3.X being referred to as "Diablo tabletop", in spite of the fact that there were Diablo II sourcebooks for it. Even though, it meshed Diablo setting to 3.x rules, it didn't adopt combat mechanics from the game.
The reason 4E is called "MMO-ish" is because of the powers per day/encounter set up that they commonly have.It unlike 3.x has the appearance of having been meshed into an MMO combat mechanic mindset regarding power usage, rather than an MMo's setting being tailored to the rules.
This is not an unfair representation. It is what it is.
When 3e came out, it was often and loudly criticized for being nothing more then Diablo as a tabletop game. This in spite of 2e having the official Diablo roleplaying book.
3e had the actual World of Warcraft books, but 4e gets painted with the brush.
Personally I'm holding out to see what Blizzard game actually does get a 4e book so we can start predicting what 5e will be called ;p
I don't ever remeber 3.X being referred to as "Diablo tabletop", in spite of the fact that there were Diablo II sourcebooks for it. Even though, it meshed Diablo setting to 3.x rules, it didn't adopt combat mechanics from the game.
The reason 4E is called "MMO-ish" is because of the powers per day/encounter set up that they commonly have.
It unlike 3.x has the appearance of having been meshed into an MMO combat mechanic mindset regarding power usage, rather than an MMo's setting being tailored to the rules.This is not an unfair representation. It is what it is.
You were not around 2e fans at the time 3e came about, then. It's incredibly humerous to see the exact same arguments that were used against 3e now being used - by those same 3e fans that fought against them! - against 4e.
Also, I've played/playtested no small number of MMOs, and 4e has close to nothing in common with them. The AEDU system isn't found in any MMORPG, period. I've never once seen an MMORPG where abilities were constrained due to encounters.
The reason 4E is called "MMO-ish" is because of the powers per day/encounter set up that they commonly have.
That's not all: The marks mechanics bring to mind "aggro", i.e. game rules for forcing others to act in certain ways.
But of course, the heterogeneous set-up of all classes, where you get a specific kind of power at a specific level, and have a lot of things that are tied to the "tiers", and all that, does seem a lot of what I heard about WoW.
You were not around 2e fans at the time 3e came about, then. It's incredibly humerous to see the exact same arguments that were used against 3e now being used - by those same 3e fans that fought against them! - against 4e.Also, I've played/playtested no small number of MMOs, and 4e has close to nothing in common with them. The AEDU system isn't found in any MMORPG, period. I've never once seen an MMORPG where abilities were constrained due to encounters.
You know, you don't have to copy the exact mechanics of a given MMO to remind people of computer games. CRPGs, and by extension MMOs, tend to be fairly simplistic in certain areas, due to the limits of the medium. If a game follow the same rough model of design, it's no surprise that people are drawing parallels.
That doesn't mean you are a bad person to like the game in spite of (or because of) these design choices.
You are, however, also not wrong for disliking the game for those same reasons. And since Pathfinder, for obvious reasons, tends to primarily attract people who, for one reason or another, were dissatisfied with the direction 4E was taken, you will find a lot of people from the latter group around here.
Making up 'facts' from 11 years ago to prove how people today are idiots, is just mean spirited. And doesn't really serve to promote your agenda.
When 3e came out, it was often and loudly criticized for being nothing more then Diablo as a tabletop game. This in spite of 2e having the official Diablo roleplaying book.
3e had the actual World of Warcraft books, but 4e gets painted with the brush.
Personally I'm holding out to see what Blizzard game actually does get a 4e book so we can start predicting what 5e will be called ;p
I don't ever remeber 3.X being referred to as "Diablo tabletop", in spite of the fact that there were Diablo II sourcebooks for it. Even though, it meshed Diablo setting to 3.x rules, it didn't adopt combat mechanics from the game.
The reason 4E is called "MMO-ish" is because of the powers per day/encounter set up that they commonly have.
It unlike 3.x has the appearance of having been meshed into an MMO combat mechanic mindset regarding power usage, rather than an MMo's setting being tailored to the rules.This is not an unfair representation. It is what it is.
You were not around 2e fans at the time 3e came about, then. It's incredibly humerous to see the exact same arguments that were used against 3e now being used - by those same 3e fans that fought against them! - against 4e.
Also, I've played/playtested no small number of MMOs, and 4e has close to nothing in common with them. The AEDU system isn't found in any MMORPG, period. I've never once seen an MMORPG where abilities were constrained due to encounters.
Splitting hairs. I did not say MMOs use the exact same combat mechanics 4E does.
You've never played EQ or EQII then.
I for one am incredibly happy I got my joke in before the thread actually turned into Yet Another 4e Thread. Oh well; it was inevitable.
That's not all: The marks mechanics bring to mind "aggro", i.e. game rules for forcing others to act in certain ways.
I agree, one of the reasons it's called an MMO is because people haven't read the rules and have no idea how things like marks function!
The 3e Knight class is the one that uses the MMO aggro mechanics. 4e marking doesn't cause "aggro," it doesn't force enemies to attack anyone, there's no mind control going on.
But of course, the heterogeneous set-up of all classes, where you get a specific kind of power at a specific level, and have a lot of things that are tied to the "tiers", and all that, does seem a lot of what I heard about WoW.
You heard wrong.
You know, you don't have to copy the exact mechanics of a given MMO to remind people of computer games. CRPGs, and by extension MMOs, tend to be fairly simplistic in certain areas, due to the limits of the medium. If a game follow the same rough model of design, it's no surprise that people are drawing parallels.
But uh, it's not following the same rough model of design. No more then 3e did.
You are, however, also not wrong for disliking the game for those same reasons. And since Pathfinder, for obvious reasons, tends to primarily attract people who, for one reason or another, were dissatisfied with the direction 4E was taken, you will find a lot of people from the latter group around here.
You are wrong if your claim doesn't hold up. If someone is going to claim that 4e is like an MMORPG, and they are asked what they mean by that, and they are unable to show how or why, then it's an unsubstantial claim.
Making up 'facts' from 11 years ago to prove how people today are idiots, is just mean spirited. And doesn't really serve to promote your agenda.
I wasn't aware I had an agenda! By all means, what would that agenda be?
Nor am I making up facts. Again, it was very well spread when 3e was in development that many 2e fans claimed it was too video gamey, with Diablo being used rather often. If you weren't around at the time, then you missed out, I guess?
My claim is simply "Nothing changes." Nihil novi sub soli. Every time a new edition comes around, the same complaints are made. Hell, there were some Runequest fans who claimed AD&D was a rogue-like way back on Usenet!
Splitting hairs. I did not say MMOs use the exact same combat mechanics 4E does.
You've never played EQ or EQII then.
They don't have anything similar to the mechanics.
And yeah, I played EQ and EQ2.
I've yet to see the actual argument for 4e's "MMO-isms" aside from "I totally think this."
And yeah, I played EQ and EQ2.
Then you know they have timers that are so high (15-25 minutes on reuse, or even once per 12 or 24 hours,)that they'll only be usable once per encounter, or a ton of abilities that are only once per target. Or I suppose that somehow isn't the same?
I reckon you've seen the arguments, you're just not swayed and continue to play a game you enjoy. That's fine. This isn't about BADWRONGFUN.
But they're there, and glaring.
And yeah, I played EQ and EQ2.Then you know they have timers that are so high (15-25 minutes on reuse, or even once per 12 or 24 hours,)that they'll only be usable once per encounter, or a ton of abilities that are only once per target. Or I suppose that somehow isn't the same?
I reckon you've seen the arguments, you're just not swayed and continue to play a game you enjoy. That's fine. This isn't about BADWRONGFUN.
But they're there, and glaring.
Would you agree then that the daily mechanics in 3e and Pathfinder (and 2e, for that matter) make them MMORPGs?
Because MMOs actually have 24 hour cooldowns.
Also, no. "Once every twenty minutes" and "once every encounter" is not remotely the same. Especially since encounter powers are reusable after "a brief 5 minute rest," not after 25 minutes of using.
If you use your encounter power and then go on to fight for three in game hours because you're in the middle of a war or something, you don't get your encounter powers back. Just the same as you don't suddenly regain all your spells after eight hours even if you don't rest.
No I would not agree.
But, I'm done. I don't get along well in Obtuseville.
No I would not agree.
But, I'm done. I don't get along well in Obtuseville.
Yes, I - the one who gives full and written answers to all my questions - am the obtuse one.
But uh, it's not following the same rough model of design. No more then 3e did.
But, uh, sure it is. Much more than 3e ever did. It's fine if you can't see it, but it was incredible obvious to me from my reading of the books.
You are wrong if your claim doesn't hold up. If someone is going to claim that 4e is like an MMORPG, and they are asked what they mean by that, and they are unable to show how or why, then it's an unsubstantial claim.
Maybe calling 4E an MMO isn't accurate. But it does feel like it was designed to be easily converted into a CPRPG. It's strong on mechanics (that don't have to make any in-game sense since, hey, it's just a game) and it's weak on that pesky concept of choice that makes a good computer game implementation so difficult to pull off.
D&D has had some decent success in the CRPG market in the past 15 years. Why not design a system that's more compatible with that market segment?
I don't know if that's the thought behind it, but 4E would be a great system if I wanted to design a computer game. I'd totally play a CRPG using this system, as much as I'd hate playing it as a TT game.
I wasn't aware I had an agenda! By all means, what would that agenda be?
Presumably to make people stop hating on 4E for reasons you disagree with and think are uninformed.
Of course, it's starting to seem that it's more about inciting edition wars for the heck of it.
Can we not turn this into an edition wars thread?
And is there an ignore function?
Just once I'd like to see someone say "4e is like an MMO/cRPG, because of this thing I noticed when I was playing it and gave it an honest chance without preconceptions" rather then "I heard from someone this thing in the book is like this other thing I heard from someone is in an MMORPG."
It's just something I don't really see all too often.
Of course, it's starting to seem that it's more about inciting edition wars for the heck of it.
I started no war, my good sir. But I did start fighting when it broke out around me.