Pathfinder 1E Elephant in the room/thread Forked Thread: Pathfinder - sell me

[I'm A Banana]

I'm going to make a truly radical claim right now.

Not one of these things you mention above in any way would prevent you from telling the story you want to tell in 4th Edition Dungeons & Dragons, if that same story could be told in any previous edition of Dungeons & Dragons. Not one.

I totally agree with this.

I'm under the impression that Pathfinder comes basically out of the GSL. Things like the delays and the re-definition clause and all sorts of noise.

I'm sure PF could exist in 4e, if the GSL wasn't so borked, at LEAST early on (but probably ongoing).

Edit: See the post above me.

Also: YAY INDEPENDENCE!

 

[smug]

No, it's not. Because of the structure of narrative gameplay, a wound that you might otherwise have not considered lethal to the monster (in the storytelling sense) becomes lethal when it's clear that it would make a good story if it were - the idea of the fighter's wound being responsible for the monster's death, but the bard's mockery actually finishing him off is a compelling one to weave into your game's narrative.

Well, to me, as you explain it, it is. I'm a physicist and I like my cause and effect, I guess. I might cheat as a DM and I wouldn't feel bad about it but the rationale for hp was already shonky before this. All my taste, of course, etc, etc.

Of course, you can always play up the magical angle of the bard's vicious mockery. It is, after all, dealing psychic damage using a magical implement. Though words are the vehicle to deliver the attack, it's just as harmful in an arcane way as if the warlock had tried to rip the target's mind asunder with visions of the Far Realm.

I guess this part of my problem is the bard. They were easy to ignore in 1e because no one played them and I didn't play 2e; in 3.x the magical performance stuff was icky but most people again didn't play bards.

 

[RefinedBean]

snip

Thanks for weighing in, James! The inability to change the basic definitions/descriptions of monsters certainly would hinder the je ne sais quoi that Paizo has when it comes to campaign and adventure design.

 

[Roman]

So just to be perfectly clear, it's not the fact that the rules in 4th edition are different or that there's a "decency clause" in the GSL that won't let us "tell our stories the way we want to" that, honestly, was the main element that convinced us at Paizo that we were better off with 3.5/Pathfinder RPG. Rules are in large part irrelevant to story, and the fact that many are playing Pathifnder adventures with 4th edition rules is proof of that. Likewise, while we DO skew toward more mature content, we don't have to—we operated under the same "decency clause" with Dragon and Dungeon, after all, and were able to do pretty much everything we wanted to do there.

No, the real problem is the fact that the GSL prohibits you from redefining things. As I read the GSL, if you do a GSL product, you have to present goblins, succubi, eladrin, the Abyss, and everything else in the game in the way (both rules and flavor) that D&D presents it. We wouldn't have been able to redesign goblins the way we did in Pathfinder #1, nor would we have been able to make the changes to drow that we did in Second Darknss had we been using the GSL. THAT'S what we meant, really, when we said that it won't let us tell the stories the way we want.

Another part of the problem is that if we went with the GSL, we'd be handing a big chunk of our destiny back to WotC, since they can change or revoke or adjust the GSL whenever they want. That includes 4 to 10 or more years from now... the folk who control the GSL today will not remain the same folk (with the same desires and opinions) forever. It's not good business to base your entire publishing concern on a foundation that someone else controls and can change (or remove) at any time.

Furthermore, I can certainly say this: not being beholden to another master is incredibly liberating. The loss of the magazine licenses and then the loss of a supported and in-print rules set have caused an incredible amount of stress and worry here at Paizo. Both were things we had no control over, and when you have key underlying elements of a business that you have no control over, that's a recipe for doom. With the switch to Pathfinder RPG, Pazio is, for pretty much the first time, flying under its own control; we're free to succeed or fail on our own, without worry of having the rug yanked out from under us just as we're getting our footing. I'm pretty excited by that.

Thank you for the enlightening post.

I did not realize the GSL prevents redefinition in the way you describe. To my mind that prohibition defeats much of the purpose of the (relatively) open license, which is to make the core product (in this case the 4E PHB) appealing to a wider audience - an audience that wants different flavor(s) than those used in standard 4E. Indeed, the radical departure of 4E flavor is a major reason for the edition rift for many people. For me personally, it is both the rules and the flavor that matter, so the ability of 3PPs to redefine the flavor would not draw me to 4E, but I think with a wider variety of permitted flavors (in terms of support by 3PPs), they could have enticed a larger proportion of the fanbase to switch to 4E.

 

[Dannager]

No, the real problem is the fact that the GSL prohibits you from redefining things. As I read the GSL, if you do a GSL product, you have to present goblins, succubi, eladrin, the Abyss, and everything else in the game in the way (both rules and flavor) that D&D presents it. We wouldn't have been able to redesign goblins the way we did in Pathfinder #1, nor would we have been able to make the changes to drow that we did in Second Darknss had we been using the GSL. THAT'S what we meant, really, when we said that it won't let us tell the stories the way we want.

While your other two points are very good ones, and absolutely valid reasons to run your own show, I don't think the GSL works quite the way you think it does.

I'm not suggesting that you reverse course or anything like that, but I do want to be sure that misconceptions about the GSL aren't spread too far. The GSL prevents you from redefining elements of the D&D game - goblins, for instance, must be goblins. But what you can do (and, indeed, are encouraged to do!) is simply add to that definition by creating your own sub-element. The goblin example you bring up is a good point. Goblins in Golarion are a departure from the typical fantasy envisioning of the creatures, and they don't match the 4th Edition depiction of goblins. If you call them Golarion goblins, though, or Varisian goblins, or anything else that adds a new sub-element to the "goblin" classification, you can change that element to whatever you need it to be in your product, by simply making it clear that "These goblins are not the same as the goblins presented in core D&D products."

The point of that section of the GSL, as I understand it, is to avoid a situation where a 3PP creates a product using a licensed element (like goblins) and makes it sound like their version of goblins is how all goblins in D&D are. If that happens, the consumer might be turned off of all goblins because they're under the impression that this is how goblins work in Dungeons & Dragons, even though it's really how goblins work only in this 3PP's products. It's not intended to restrict creativity, and I'm pretty sure that it doesn't, in practice.

As I've pointed out in the past, though, this is something that could be cleared up by Mr. Rouse pretty easily. I know he's reluctant to comment on the legalities of the GSL, but a clarification of intent like this would be pretty helpful. Anyone think they can point him this way, perhaps?

EDIT: From the GSL FAQ on WotC's website -

"Q: Section 4.1 states that, “Licensee will not define, redefine, or alter the definition
of any 4E Reference in a Licensed Product.” What does this mean?

A: This means you that if you want to use a 4E Reference listed in the GSL SRD (for
example, Dragonborn), you must not alter the definition in such a way as to define or
redefine, or alter the definition as found in the Player’s Handbook (e.g. “Classes that use
Dragonborn get an additional +1 to Strength and +1 in Intimidate). You may, however,
extend a definition by adding to the original content. As an example: “…if you want to
play a Dragonborn please refer to the Race Chapter of the 4th Edition Player’s Handbook.
For a Greatmountian Dragonborn take an additional +1 Strength and +1 in Intimidate.”

Q: Can I redefine non-mechanic materials (“fluff”)?

A: No. You may add new material, but you cannot define, redefine, or alter any 4E
Reference, including “fluff.” Please refer back to Section 4.1 on redefining 4E
References. As an example: “In this world Eladrin are between 5’ 9”- 6’ 5” in height and
can use Fey Step as an At-Will Power” would redefine the definition of Eladrin, whereas
the statement: “The isolation of the Deepwood Eladrin have allowed them to evolve with
several unique traits including being slightly taller in height, between 5’ 9”- 6’ 5”, and
after generations of meditation can use Fey Step as an At-Will Power” would extend the
definition by adding a Deepwood sub race while allowing the term Eladrin to maintain its
original definition as found in the 4th Edition Player’s Handbook."

This is a much clearer view of how the redefinition provisions actually are intended to work.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

With the switch to Pathfinder RPG, Pazio is, for pretty much the first time, flying under its own control; we're free to succeed or fail on our own, without worry of having the rug yanked out from under us just as we're getting our footing. I'm pretty excited by that.

I hope you find the tyrrany of freedom a welcoming embrace and not a smothering monster.


You've got my support. Keep it up.

 

[malraux]

This is a much clearer view of how the redefinition provisions actually are intended to work.

I suspect that you are right, but I'd also believe that Paizo really doesn't want to base their business on one interpretation of the license over the other. If future leadership at WotC decides that 3pp have crossed a line, a 3pp doesn't have a lot of flexibility to object. At least with the OGL, Paizo is in charge of their own destiny.

 

[rounser]

If the other characters don't want to take "orders" from the grizzled, battle-hardened war veteran, than either the group has problems or they'll have to figure out another way to make things work.

It's implied in the warlord's powers. The problem is embedded in the rules.

 

[RefinedBean]

The problem is embedded in the rules.

I'm going to highlight the key word.

This is a problem for YOU. That's perfectly legit. It is NOT, however, a problem with the SYSTEM. The Warlord is a perfectly fine class.

Do you have the same problem with a Bard? With a Cleric of a god that none of the other characters worship, or even BELIEVE in?

Also, the rules also suggest you flavor your powers as you want. If your friends at the table are saying they don't like to have orders barked at them, simply change up the power's fluff.

 

[rounser]

This is a problem for YOU.

Yes, and if the warlord were not part of the core and I was arguing for it's inclusion, you'd be saying "you're the only one who wants this class."

You can't dispute my points so you're getting desperate and attacking the man and not the ball, as usual.