Not sure if this belongs in General or in Home Brew... Heck it might even belong in Advice..., so I'm going with General as a default. If this is in the wrong forum, moderators do please feel free to move it.
So, here's a question for you, Pathfinders!
Let's say that I am working up a rules update to my longest running fantasy game world (Loris - a "Stuck in the Early Renaissance Era," Low-to-Mid Magic, Political Intrigue meets Wartorn Landscape type world), and I want to get off of 3.x and bring it up to Pathfinder. I've already considered moving it to another system (M&M 3E, for one, HERO for another, and Fuzion for a third) and decided that since I already have so much invested in the D20/OGL ruleset that I'll simply bring it up to Pathfinder.
Okay, so that's step one.
Step two, I sit down and look at what I have. A quick tally tells me that:
- I have long since replaced Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric with variants (heck, way back in 2E, no one was allowed to play a Fighter that wasn't a Kit, and all Clerics had to be Specialty Priests). There are no such things as Bards, no Sorcerers, and Assassin is a job, not a Class.
- I have a very strong urge to toss the Vancian magic system out and replace it with a per-encounter style system not entirely unlike that presented in Star Wars Saga (not the same, mind, as that's not OGL, but similar).
- I really don't want to lose my old Social Status and Wealth tables, because I feel they more accurately model the potentials for disparity between someone's Social Status and their actual monetary Wealth. But, at the same time, I really don't want to do a lot of conversions over to the GP/SP/CP standards (again)
- Races, Nations, Skills, these are already set from their old 3.x counterparts. A few updates here and there, many of which I'd already done (combining the various awareness skills into Perception, for instance). This is easy.
So after putting that tally together, I start muddling about with the PFRPG and realize something:
If I remodel magic (both Divine and Arcane) and I re-do the various classes (get rid of Fighter, replace with Swordsman, Soldier, Rifleman and Berserk, for instance), and I change up the way money is handled...
Is this now a "Pathfinder Compatible" project, or am I in fact making an entirely new OGL product?
I'm not new to tearing down systems and using a bit of jiggery-pokery to eliminate problem mechanics and/or bolster the ones that work, but at what point does it stop being "I'm tweaking this class" and start being "So my new system should be ready for beta soon"?
And, more to the point - how many of you have had these issues, and what did you do?
Did you dive in and stay down until you got it done?
Did you say "slag it" and just go with the default rules?
Did you find some happy medium?
An inquiring mind wants to know! :D
|
Whether it's legally a Pathfinder compatable project or a new OGL product is likely something a copywrite lawyer would have to answer.
Grab a copy of the OGL and really scrutinize it; see if that helps you get a better grip.
The "System" my buddy and I considered hiring someone to develop based on our framework turned out to be a new OGL product; it revamps Ability Scores, HP & AC; and plays with a couple other things -- but things like Evasion are still Evasion, Fireball is still Fireball and Power Attack is still Power Attack.
|
The Advanced Player's Guide allows for variants of just about every class in the game. What I have done in a lot of places with my 2nd Edition->3.5->Pathfinder campaign is make certain variants the norm in different locations. For example, in one of the nations, where Muses originate (a PC race), the Dreamspun Sorcerer bloodline is the normal spellcaster.
In another nation, I mixed up the dwarven racial traits and determined that all of the dwarves from this nation have one or two of the variants.
As for spellcasting, that depends on how often you want or need your characters to cast spells. Considering that you said it was low to mid Magic, the Vancian system would work better than an encounter system, or you might limit it even further than that.
In my Dark Tower "Campaign" magic is practically impossible. Sorcerers and Savants (the Wizard alternative) must generally take feats to learn spells. But I consider this a unique campaign that is relatively high in magic, just very low in availability of magic.
The Advanced Player's Guide allows for variants of just about every class in the game. What I have done in a lot of places with my 2nd Edition->3.5->Pathfinder campaign is make certain variants the norm in different locations. For example, in one of the nations, where Muses originate (a PC race), the Dreamspun Sorcerer bloodline is the normal spellcaster.
In another nation, I mixed up the dwarven racial traits and determined that all of the dwarves from this nation have one or two of the variants.
As for spellcasting, that depends on how often you want or need your characters to cast spells. Considering that you said it was low to mid Magic, the Vancian system would work better than an encounter system, or you might limit it even further than that.
In my Dark Tower "Campaign" magic is practically impossible. Sorcerers and Savants (the Wizard alternative) must generally take feats to learn spells. But I consider this a unique campaign that is relatively high in magic, just very low in availability of magic.
One of the factors that I consider to lend itself to the world being a low- to mid-magic campaign is the general lack of magical items. When magic items are a commodity, the concept of anything other than "High Fantasy" is thrown out the window like yesterdays bathwater.
In Fantasy Literature (caps for effect), if someone has a magic item, it's a "signature" thing. Conan's sword, or Hellscream's axe (for a more modern equivalent). You don't just drop it off at the magic item shop and pick up a newer model because it's "got more bonuses" - you KEEP that weapon, and you USE that weapon, and if you need to use that weapon to kill a new menace, you track down the one Wizard in the land who knows the location of the Pool Of Chillblood that you can dip your weapon into after tempering it in the blood of a Rock Dragon - and voila, your weapon now has the Icy Burst ability on it if and only if you did it all correctly. Now, go find Grothian The Wicked and put an end to him!
In standard D&D/PFRPG, and most other fantasy games, magic is such an easy-to-come-by commodity that it is entirely more likely that the PC's will simply commission or "Go into town to buy" that +2 Icy Burst Battleaxe than they would be to go on a quest to obtain it. Heck, any decently sized city, by the RAW, will have a half dozen wizards capable of putting the start on the Axe, if not actually finishing it.
So when I say "Low to mid magic" I'm not talking spell-power, but more the availability of it.
The problem with the spell slots per day model is that with the exception of the Dying Earth series from which it was (not very accurately) gleaned, it doesn't really reflect the nature of magic and casting and the like in Fantasy literature. The same thing is true of Magic Items - when they are a commodity, you are no longer modeling your games on Fantasy literature, but rather something else entirely.
I also dislike the spells-per-day tropes because they end up with the wizards standing back and not having much to do during any given encounter, and further lead to the "three encounters and we're done for the day" and "Okay, that's my last 4th level spell, guys, let's camp." Call me crazy, but if you give each PC class something to do in an encounter, every encounter, they're more likely to break free from the "four and CAMP!" mentality. Perhaps I'm metagaming against the metagamers, but it's fair to say that the spells-per-day model has certainly fostered a "game the system" mentality in those of us who play spellcasters. I know I have to sometimes force myself to not do it when I'm playing my School Of Bigger Explosions Evoker in my friends Spelljammer-inspired game on Monday nights.
Whether it's legally a Pathfinder compatable project or a new OGL product is likely something a copywrite lawyer would have to answer.
Grab a copy of the OGL and really scrutinize it; see if that helps you get a better grip.
The "System" my buddy and I considered hiring someone to develop based on our framework turned out to be a new OGL product; it revamps Ability Scores, HP & AC; and plays with a couple other things -- but things like Evasion are still Evasion, Fireball is still Fireball and Power Attack is still Power Attack.
Fair points, both.
I won't pretend that I wouldn't eventually like to be able to put a couple of license disclaimers on the game world and make it available. I've been working on it long enough, and a couple of my previously binding legal documents are up for expiration soon, which means I'll have the ability to do so again...
But your last paragraph is what I was kind of getting after in my questions:
At what point did you decide that your idea was a new "product" versus just a very, very re-jiggered package for PFRPG?
Chief Technical Officer
|
- I have long since replaced Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric with variants (heck, way back in 2E, no one was allowed to play a Fighter that wasn't a Kit, and all Clerics had to be Specialty Priests). There are no such things as Bards, no Sorcerers, and Assassin is a job, not a Class.
- I have a very strong urge to toss the Vancian magic system out and replace it with a per-encounter style system not entirely unlike that presented in Star Wars Saga (not the same, mind, as that's not OGL, but similar).
If you're redoing all the classes and the magic system, I'd say odds are good you have you own OGL product.
One test I'd offer for determining whether your product is "compatible" with the Pathfinder RPG: If you pick up a copy of, say, Ultimate Magic, would you have difficulty figuring out how to make it work with your idea? Similarly, if you were to come out with, say, an adventure for your system, would Pathfinder RPG players have problems using it? If either of those are true, I'd say odds are good you don't have a compatible product, and if they're *both* true, you almost certainly don't.
- I have long since replaced Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric with variants (heck, way back in 2E, no one was allowed to play a Fighter that wasn't a Kit, and all Clerics had to be Specialty Priests). There are no such things as Bards, no Sorcerers, and Assassin is a job, not a Class.
- I have a very strong urge to toss the Vancian magic system out and replace it with a per-encounter style system not entirely unlike that presented in Star Wars Saga (not the same, mind, as that's not OGL, but similar).
If you're redoing all the classes and the magic system, I'd say odds are good you have you own OGL product.
One test I'd offer for determining whether your product is "compatible" with the Pathfinder RPG: If you pick up a copy of, say, Ultimate Magic, would you have difficulty figuring out how to make it work with your idea? Similarly, if you were to come out with, say, an adventure for your system, would Pathfinder RPG players have problems using it? If either of those are true, I'd say odds are good you don't have a compatible product, and if they're *both* true, you almost certainly don't.
Ah, but with the "Words of Power" system now being in PFRPG (or so we've been led to believe ... ;) ), and the Archetypes in the APG, would that make a difference in that test?
For instance, if I put the classes down as Archetypes using the examples and rules in the APG, and swap out Spells/Day for Words - would that still be a new product? Or is it still in the range of "Compatible"?
To be fair, I'm mostly running through this thread and these ideas as a thought experiment for the time being. I'm super curious to see what sorts of thoughts people have about the idea, I must say. :)
Not sure if this belongs in General or in Home Brew... Heck it might even belong in Advice..., so I'm going with General as a default. If this is in the wrong forum, moderators do please feel free to move it.
So, here's a question for you, Pathfinders!
Let's say that I am working up a rules update to my longest running fantasy game world (Loris - a "Stuck in the Early Renaissance Era," Low-to-Mid Magic, Political Intrigue meets Wartorn Landscape type world), and I want to get off of 3.x and bring it up to Pathfinder. I've already considered moving it to another system (M&M 3E, for one, HERO for another, and Fuzion for a third) and decided that since I already have so much invested in the D20/OGL ruleset that I'll simply bring it up to Pathfinder.
Okay, so that's step one.
Step two, I sit down and look at what I have. A quick tally tells me that:
- I have long since replaced Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric with variants (heck, way back in 2E, no one was allowed to play a Fighter that wasn't a Kit, and all Clerics had to be Specialty Priests). There are no such things as Bards, no Sorcerers, and Assassin is a job, not a Class.
- I have a very strong urge to toss the Vancian magic system out and replace it with a per-encounter style system not entirely unlike that presented in Star Wars Saga (not the same, mind, as that's not OGL, but similar).
- I really don't want to lose my old Social Status and Wealth tables, because I feel they more accurately model the potentials for disparity between someone's Social Status and their actual monetary Wealth. But, at the same time, I really don't want to do a lot of conversions over to the GP/SP/CP standards (again)
- Races, Nations, Skills, these are already set from their old 3.x counterparts. A few updates here and there, many of which I'd already done (combining the various awareness skills into Perception, for instance). This is easy.
So after putting that tally together, I start muddling about with the PFRPG and realize something:
If I...
When I feel like I have to learn a new ruleset or strategies based on the roots of the game don't work then the game has changed.
If I can't use it in an Pathfinder adventure then it is no longer pathfinder compatible to me either.
It is another D20 project, IMHO.
Aren't both optional?Ah, but with the "Words of Power" system now being in PFRPG (or so we've been led to believe ... ;) ), and the Archetypes in the APG, would that make a difference in that test?
Optional, yes, but still fitting in to the point of my post - if those can be used without any modification to a published Pathfinder adventure, would their use, or the use of something very much like them, render an idea compatible, or "branch"?
To use a computer term - would it be a new distribution, or simply a patch?
|
Aren't both optional?Ah, but with the "Words of Power" system now being in PFRPG (or so we've been led to believe ... ;) ), and the Archetypes in the APG, would that make a difference in that test?
Optional, yes, but still fitting in to the point of my post - if those can be used without any modification to a published Pathfinder adventure, would their use, or the use of something very much like them, render an idea compatible, or "branch"?
To use a computer term - would it be a new distribution, or simply a patch?
IMO, if your changes exactly follow the APG and Words of Power formats -- and still stay compatible to the rest of the Paizo lineup -- then it should be compatible.
Following Vic's train of thought: Can I take one of your world's PCs and convert it into a Pathfinder PC with the same minimum effort it takes to convert a 3.x PC to the Pathfinder rules? Is the APG compatible with your setting's rules?
Download a copy of D20 ADVANCED MAGIC from Drivethru.
Learning spells is based on Spellcraft, Sorcerers get the equivalent of 80 first level spells, Wizards unlimited spells, and spellcasting is based on DC.
Aren't both optional?Ah, but with the "Words of Power" system now being in PFRPG (or so we've been led to believe ... ;) ), and the Archetypes in the APG, would that make a difference in that test?
Optional, yes, but still fitting in to the point of my post - if those can be used without any modification to a published Pathfinder adventure, would their use, or the use of something very much like them, render an idea compatible, or "branch"?
To use a computer term - would it be a new distribution, or simply a patch?
Or, would it be a conversion, much like the various Half-Life re-works? They're still using the Half-Life engine, and much of the controls are the same...
I'd consider it a variant rules-set for the Pathfinder RPG, myself. It's still using the core mechanic, and a lot of the rules from the CRB, yes?
I'm facing this question myself - I want to run a modern/future Pathfinder game, but I'm interested in using a variant wounding system for it, rather than HP. Otherwise, everything else remains the same as the CRB. Is that PF, PF-compatible, or have I strayed into other realms...?
Or, would it be a conversion, much like the various Half-Life re-works? They're still using the Half-Life engine, and much of the controls are the same...I'd consider it a variant rules-set for the Pathfinder RPG, myself. It's still using the core mechanic, and a lot of the rules from the CRB, yes?
Kind of what I'm after, yeah.
For instance, if I use all the base mechanics and the idea of Alternate Classes, but chuck in a new Optional Magic System, Optional Wealth System, and the like, you could still technically use all the standard Pathfinder widgetry for the game - but the flavor and overall world-experience would be entirely different if you did.
So one could hypothetically say "In order to present the full flavor and color of the game world, the following Optional Rules are to be used while playing in the lands of Loris" - and "strongly encourage" the GM to run with those changes in place - but the game could still be run without them. It would just be a very different game if they did.
I'm facing this question myself - I want to run a modern/future Pathfinder game, but I'm interested in using a variant wounding system for it, rather than HP. Otherwise, everything else remains the same as the CRB. Is that PF, PF-compatible, or have I strayed into other realms...?
i'm glad I'm not the only one with the question! For a while I was feeling rather lonely... ;)
|
Chief Technical Officer
|
There's definitely not a black-and-white line here. All I can say is that the more you change stuff, the more likely people would consider it incompatible. For example, ten different publishers could each change one part of the rules (spellcasting, leveling, damage, etc.) and nobody would have any problems, but if one publisher changed all ten of those parts at once, he might actually have a game that most people would fail to recognize as the Pathfinder RPG. (In which case, it's still fine under the OGL, but you just couldn't call it Pathfinder—but at that point, why would you want to?)
Ah, but with the "Words of Power" system now being in PFRPG (or so we've been led to believe ... ;) ), and the Archetypes in the APG, would that make a difference in that test?
For instance, if I put the classes down as Archetypes using the examples and rules in the APG, and swap out Spells/Day for Words - would that still be a new product? Or is it still in the range of "Compatible"?
To be fair, I'm mostly running through this thread and these ideas as a thought experiment for the time being. I'm super curious to see what sorts of thoughts people have about the idea, I must say. :)
I'd say that changing existing optional rules to mandatory is probably reasonably safe.