Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Paizo Announces Pathfinder War of Immortals Meta Event
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="ReshiIRE" data-source="post: 9329859" data-attributes="member: 7031231"><p>That is a possibility.</p><p></p><p>They have commented on redoing full Adventure Paths before; there are a lot of difficulties that have come up for them to do so. Financial, artistically, and time wise. This is a long summary, but I think useful:</p><p></p><p>1. It is a LOT of work. While there is an outline, they do not just change the rules and content to fit PF2e; they typically have to change up what levels each chapter is for, adjust the content / themes of the adventure for the standards Paizo has now*, figure out what to do with any particular mechanics that AP may have that are different from the base game, etc.</p><p></p><p>2. They have commented that the Kingmaker conversion was significantly more work and more complex than they thought it would be, and I believe that is not entirely the fault of the stretch goals. They essentially did the work for it in parallel with their usual workload. If I remember correctly, they suggest that if they do another remake, it will be more like what they did with Crown of the Kobold King - it will be scheduled and part of their usual content making, rather than on top of it.</p><p></p><p>Which means that a remake would replace a release of a new Adventure Path. That would make it a more difficult sell; Paizo is the one who has the data but I wouldn't be surprised if they look at the data between their current subscribers and whether they own the 1e PDF versions of an Adventure Path in question, and think about what that implies when it comes to whether a remake is worth it in terms of sales.</p><p></p><p>3. Paizo's strategy around Adventure Paths has changed. Since the issues and initial reception of the first three Adventure Paths for 2e - where issues were raised both with how they had early system adoption woes and the issues with content in some of them - and the much better reception of Abomination Vaults - Paizo instead has focused on 3 part APs, rather than 6 part APs, of different level ranges (rather than just 1 to 10, 11 to 20 or 1 to 10). Their recent output have generally been 3 or 4 part Adventure Paths. It seems that these generally sell better, are often received well, and means Paizo can produce a lot more different Adventure Paths (and probably make them more cohesive as a result).</p><p></p><p>With this in mind, any future 6 part Adventure Path would be a big deal from Paizo, and that to me indicates they'd prefer to put the work into making something new.</p><p></p><p>4. With the OGL disaster and the move to ORC, now there could be issues with conversion. Some early Adventure Paths rely on D&D / Forgotten Realm IP. For example, while we'd probably never receive a Second Darkness conversion because I dont' believe it was received well and its early content doesn't align with Paizo's lore develops and retcons since then, it was possible for Paizo to do before 2023. </p><p></p><p>Now it's impossible - Paizo cannot use fantasy / D&D like Drow and so the entire thing would be changed. It would be, at most, adopting a similar premise but done differently. At which case - they could just release a new Adventure Path.</p><p></p><p>5. Pathfinder Infinite exists, and allows the community to make conversion guides and documents - including for money - for Pathfinder Adventures and Adventure Paths. This means that if you own a copy of the original Adventure Path, you can use these guides to help you convert for former Adventure Path. On some level this reduces the need to convert previous Adventure Path. Though, on the flip side, this probably helps guide Paizo on which Adventure Paths to convert in the future if they want to.</p><p></p><p>This is why Hell's Rebels is, I think, the most likely Adventure Path after Rise of the Runelords to convert, because I see the conversion guide for it for Pathfinder 2e constantly on the front page or search results of Pathfinder Infinite.</p><p></p><p>6. Paizo I think on some level feels that GMs can, with some effort, convert Pathfinder 1e Adventures to 2e without their help.</p><p></p><p>A recent Adventure Path - the special 200 issue - is Seven Dooms for Sandpoint. Without going into spoilers, part of the premise for the AP is that it references past Adventure Paths that are related to Sandpoint... including Rise of the Runelords.</p><p></p><p>It's mentioned within the AP itself that, to lead into the adventure, you could play #1 Burnt Offerings - the first ever Adventure Path issue and the first part of Rise of the Runelords. Since they explicitly say that the player characters who play through Burnt Offerings could also be the PCs for Seven Dooms (set 17 years later), I think there is a strong implication that they'd expect you to convert Burnt Offerings to PF2e.</p><p></p><p>I think that is a strong sign that Paizo thinks that - while a full conversion would obviously very useful - that GMs could be able to use a 1e Adventure Path and convert themselves if they want to do so.</p><p></p><p>... regardless of all that:</p><p></p><p>I absolutely expect a Rise of the Runelords 2e conversion for the 20th Anniversary and I see it being marketed hard. There will be a lot of content adjustment including to the story, but I absolutely see them doing that and including extras and goodies - post adventure content, rules to add on top, deliberate twists within it etc.</p><p></p><p>One last note on this long essay:</p><p></p><p>Kingmaker is a special Adventure Path. Outside of one or two things, such as the fate of some kingdoms involved, it is the one Adventure Path that doesn't really have a 'canonical' ending in Pathfinder 2e lore books. This is in stark contrast to every other Adventure Path, pretty much. This is almost certainly because Kingmaker is so, so player driven as written compared to the other Adventure Paths, and Paizo doesn't want to invalidate any group's choices. </p><p></p><p>I think on some level this may have made it the perfect remake candidate; any content adjustments are not going to have the same impact on 'canon' or future adventures as it is if they remake another adventure path.</p><p></p><p>However that's definitely not going to be a reason they decide not to do another remake, as they've already remade a fair few previous adventures for Pathfinder 2e anyway.</p><p></p><p>* I have not read Rise of the Runelords, but apparently book 2 has some very, very horrifically dark content in it that Paizo would almost certainly remove and significantly adjust, replacing it with something dark but much less uncomfortable for them to write.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="ReshiIRE, post: 9329859, member: 7031231"] That is a possibility. They have commented on redoing full Adventure Paths before; there are a lot of difficulties that have come up for them to do so. Financial, artistically, and time wise. This is a long summary, but I think useful: 1. It is a LOT of work. While there is an outline, they do not just change the rules and content to fit PF2e; they typically have to change up what levels each chapter is for, adjust the content / themes of the adventure for the standards Paizo has now*, figure out what to do with any particular mechanics that AP may have that are different from the base game, etc. 2. They have commented that the Kingmaker conversion was significantly more work and more complex than they thought it would be, and I believe that is not entirely the fault of the stretch goals. They essentially did the work for it in parallel with their usual workload. If I remember correctly, they suggest that if they do another remake, it will be more like what they did with Crown of the Kobold King - it will be scheduled and part of their usual content making, rather than on top of it. Which means that a remake would replace a release of a new Adventure Path. That would make it a more difficult sell; Paizo is the one who has the data but I wouldn't be surprised if they look at the data between their current subscribers and whether they own the 1e PDF versions of an Adventure Path in question, and think about what that implies when it comes to whether a remake is worth it in terms of sales. 3. Paizo's strategy around Adventure Paths has changed. Since the issues and initial reception of the first three Adventure Paths for 2e - where issues were raised both with how they had early system adoption woes and the issues with content in some of them - and the much better reception of Abomination Vaults - Paizo instead has focused on 3 part APs, rather than 6 part APs, of different level ranges (rather than just 1 to 10, 11 to 20 or 1 to 10). Their recent output have generally been 3 or 4 part Adventure Paths. It seems that these generally sell better, are often received well, and means Paizo can produce a lot more different Adventure Paths (and probably make them more cohesive as a result). With this in mind, any future 6 part Adventure Path would be a big deal from Paizo, and that to me indicates they'd prefer to put the work into making something new. 4. With the OGL disaster and the move to ORC, now there could be issues with conversion. Some early Adventure Paths rely on D&D / Forgotten Realm IP. For example, while we'd probably never receive a Second Darkness conversion because I dont' believe it was received well and its early content doesn't align with Paizo's lore develops and retcons since then, it was possible for Paizo to do before 2023. Now it's impossible - Paizo cannot use fantasy / D&D like Drow and so the entire thing would be changed. It would be, at most, adopting a similar premise but done differently. At which case - they could just release a new Adventure Path. 5. Pathfinder Infinite exists, and allows the community to make conversion guides and documents - including for money - for Pathfinder Adventures and Adventure Paths. This means that if you own a copy of the original Adventure Path, you can use these guides to help you convert for former Adventure Path. On some level this reduces the need to convert previous Adventure Path. Though, on the flip side, this probably helps guide Paizo on which Adventure Paths to convert in the future if they want to. This is why Hell's Rebels is, I think, the most likely Adventure Path after Rise of the Runelords to convert, because I see the conversion guide for it for Pathfinder 2e constantly on the front page or search results of Pathfinder Infinite. 6. Paizo I think on some level feels that GMs can, with some effort, convert Pathfinder 1e Adventures to 2e without their help. A recent Adventure Path - the special 200 issue - is Seven Dooms for Sandpoint. Without going into spoilers, part of the premise for the AP is that it references past Adventure Paths that are related to Sandpoint... including Rise of the Runelords. It's mentioned within the AP itself that, to lead into the adventure, you could play #1 Burnt Offerings - the first ever Adventure Path issue and the first part of Rise of the Runelords. Since they explicitly say that the player characters who play through Burnt Offerings could also be the PCs for Seven Dooms (set 17 years later), I think there is a strong implication that they'd expect you to convert Burnt Offerings to PF2e. I think that is a strong sign that Paizo thinks that - while a full conversion would obviously very useful - that GMs could be able to use a 1e Adventure Path and convert themselves if they want to do so. ... regardless of all that: I absolutely expect a Rise of the Runelords 2e conversion for the 20th Anniversary and I see it being marketed hard. There will be a lot of content adjustment including to the story, but I absolutely see them doing that and including extras and goodies - post adventure content, rules to add on top, deliberate twists within it etc. One last note on this long essay: Kingmaker is a special Adventure Path. Outside of one or two things, such as the fate of some kingdoms involved, it is the one Adventure Path that doesn't really have a 'canonical' ending in Pathfinder 2e lore books. This is in stark contrast to every other Adventure Path, pretty much. This is almost certainly because Kingmaker is so, so player driven as written compared to the other Adventure Paths, and Paizo doesn't want to invalidate any group's choices. I think on some level this may have made it the perfect remake candidate; any content adjustments are not going to have the same impact on 'canon' or future adventures as it is if they remake another adventure path. However that's definitely not going to be a reason they decide not to do another remake, as they've already remade a fair few previous adventures for Pathfinder 2e anyway. * I have not read Rise of the Runelords, but apparently book 2 has some very, very horrifically dark content in it that Paizo would almost certainly remove and significantly adjust, replacing it with something dark but much less uncomfortable for them to write. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Paizo Announces Pathfinder War of Immortals Meta Event
Top