Pathfinder 1E If Paizo can, why can't Wizards of the Coast?

[LuckyAdrastus]

Granted. But the problem isn't that the old product is damaged. There is no "invalidate" argument being made. Its an arguement about "compatibility." The problem is that I can't take parts from my old car and put it into my new car without doing major modifications. Granted, some of that is just the way it is, but if you hang around car tinkerers very long you hear this complaint. At least I do.

And likewise, I can't take ideas from 4e and port them into my Pathfinder game without doing major modifications. The language isn't even the same. 4e is the first edition where I do not intuitively understand the notations or the stat blocks. This is not to say that I could not do the modifications. I could. But its more work than I care to do at the moment.

Interesting point, and perceptive analysis of your position on this issue. However, is this really a flaw with 4e, or simply that you don't personally like it? You couldn't port material from a World of Darkness adventure into 3.5 without going through the same monkeyshine you'd have to go through to adapt a 4e module. So why is one bad (4e), but the other irrelevant (WoD)?

On a separate note, from your comments, you indicate that you aren't familiar enough with 4e rules to intuitively understand the statblocks. That makes sense if you don't like the system (presumably, I'd have the same problem reading WoD Statblocks, since I'm not familiar with the system). So if you don't like the system, and you don't intuitively understand the system, why do you care one way or the other what their errata schedule is? I don't mean to be snarky, I think you are being open here about your feelings towards 4e, so I wonder what you think motivates you on this issue?

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Granted. But the problem isn't that the old product is damaged. There is no "invalidate" argument being made. Its an arguement about "compatibility." The problem is that I can't take parts from my old car and put it into my new car without doing major modifications. Granted, some of that is just the way it is, but if you hang around car tinkerers very long you hear this complaint. At least I do.

And likewise, I can't take ideas from 4e and port them into my Pathfinder game without doing major modifications. The language isn't even the same. 4e is the first edition where I do not intuitively understand the notations or the stat blocks. This is not to say that I could not do the modifications. I could. But its more work than I care to do at the moment.

Exactly.

Now here comes the part when someone asks what language is different? Hit Points are still called Hit Points, AC is still AC, the fort, Ref and will saves are still called those so they will work together and your argument is weak.

I would just preemptively refer them back to one of my earlier posts where I stated that the mechanics behind the names are different. They are calculated differently and in some cases like the Powers system is very drastically different than what came before that there is no equivalent when converting from an older mod to the 4E.

And for the last time, because I get this from random people when ever I try to back up my arguments about the differences between the systems, I'm not trying to start an edition war. I dont play 4E, I dont care if you play and enjoy 4E. Great. More power to you. But please dont tell me that it's impossibly easy to convert from older editions to 4E. Dont infer that I'm lazy, or I lack creativity or I'm some sort of controlling DM, because prefer not to wing the conversion. My point which I've tried to make pretty clear is this: If you have to change so much during a conversion that it bears little resemblance to the original, why bother with the conversion?

Some of you are fine with that. I am not. Which is why I've been saying that it's hard to convert older modules to the new edition for me because I feel that something is being lost. Now there are people who do it now and probably do it well. I'm talking about my experiences with it when 4E first came out when I was trying the system. and for me it shouldn't have been that much work and that much change to convert something as simple as Keep on the Borderlands.

That's all that I'm saying.

 

[billd91]

How good is this analogy?

Cars need new parts to operate, so if the company stops producing re-placement parts for the existing car, it will become worthless as soon as it has a problem that cannot be fixed without the new parts. So, you have a situation where the companies' decision caused the existing car to soon have a value of zero, once it needs a major repair.

Whereas, errata and new editions don't erase the previously existing information. The older books are widely available. You don't need new information to play the game the old way. I could go back to my 1st edition books, back at my parents house in my old bedroom, pull them out, and play 1st edition just as well now as then, even though new options came later. So you don't have a situation where the companies' adopting of a new standard damages the old product. The old product remains fully functional, indefinitely.

It's true that the old game doesn't need new materials - unless the old ones wear out or get destroyed in a fire or flood. Fortunately, that's a little less common than auto parts wearing out by use.

That said, old games still benefit from new ideas. Sure, you can get them from other sources, but those often take time to integrate and, as a lot of people on these boards point out, we often have less time for that stuff than we used to have.

Old games also benefit from new people. And as the game is longer out of print, the materials get harder to find making it harder to bring in new players.

So while the analogy isn't a particularly strong one, it's not completely out of left field.

 

[billd91]

Cars wear out and break down. The RPG you have now can and will run for decades just as it does now. Replacement parts are not required. And if you really are an enthusiast, you already have the manuals, and their printing new copies of the old manuals isn't of much interest to you.

But the books will wear out by use, at a slower rate maybe, so it's not like no replacement parts are ever needed. They also get destroyed by disasters. Plus, you may want them for new players and, the longer out of print they are, the harder that is.

So don't be too satisfied with your assumption that an old game never needs new parts.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Interesting point, and perceptive analysis of your position on this issue. However, is this really a flaw with 4e, or simply that you don't personally like it? You couldn't port material from a World of Darkness adventure into 3.5 without going through the same monkeyshine you'd have to go through to adapt a 4e module. So why is one bad (4e), but the other irrelevant (WoD)?

So instead of talking about that actual argument you try to nullify anything he says by insinuating that his possible dislike of the system nullies anything valid he might have to say?

It's also pretty clear that we're talking about the D&D brand and it's prior editions. Last time I checked? WoD was NOT part of the D&D brand and the mechanics are not even remotely similar nor do they profess to be. That's why your WoD example is irrelevant.

On a separate note, from your comments, you indicate that you aren't familiar enough with 4e rules to intuitively understand the statblocks. That makes sense if you don't like the system (presumably, I'd have the same problem reading WoD Statblocks, since I'm not familiar with the system). So if you don't like the system, and you don't intuitively understand the system, why do you care one way or the other what their errata schedule is? I don't mean to be snarky, I think you are being open here about your feelings towards 4e, so I wonder what you think motivates you on this issue?

I dont play Savage Worlds or Shadowrun and I probably could make heads or tales of their statblocks after a few minutes but I wouldn't know them AS WELL as someone who plays the game on a more frequent basis That doesn't mean that I hate or dont like the systems.

I'm not a fan of 4E, but now according to you that means I dont know enough about the system and also invalidates any criticism I have about it. I get the feeling that if I talked about the parts of 4E that I liked the same thing wouldn't hold true. Listen: I gave 4E a shot mostly running the game. And I didn't like it. It's not a bad game. It's just not a game I want to use for my Fantasy RPG. But according to you because of that I'm not qualified to discuss the game because I dont like the game?

 

[Wicht]

Interesting point, and perceptive analysis of your position on this issue. However, is this really a flaw with 4e, or simply that you don't personally like it? You couldn't port material from a World of Darkness adventure into 3.5 without going through the same monkeyshine you'd have to go through to adapt a 4e module. So why is one bad (4e), but the other irrelevant (WoD)?

On a separate note, from your comments, you indicate that you aren't familiar enough with 4e rules to intuitively understand the statblocks. That makes sense if you don't like the system (presumably, I'd have the same problem reading WoD Statblocks, since I'm not familiar with the system). So if you don't like the system, and you don't intuitively understand the system, why do you care one way or the other what their errata schedule is? I don't mean to be snarky, I think you are being open here about your feelings towards 4e, so I wonder what you think motivates you on this issue?

There has obviously been a breakdown of communication somewhere on my part, or the threads have got crossed or something because I don't remember ever complaining about 4e errata. Its not really a subject much on my radar. My refrence to the "older manuals" and "current support" was meant to be a reference to PDF support of older, out of print products.

The question I was originally addressing is why one company gets complaints and another does not. The short answer is that the nature of the changes is such that it causes some people to be upset.

As for comparing the ability to port stuff from WoD to 4e to the ability to port from 3e into 4e....
3e and 4e both have the name Dungeons and Dragons on them and both claim to be descendants of the game developed by Arneson and Gygax. They are both about sword and sorcery fantasy heroes in a fantasy world fighting monsters. They are the same genre, have the same name and are even made by the same company. I think it is pretty reasonable to think there should be some relationship between one edition of dungeons and dragons and another.

WoD on the other hand is a game about being a monster in a modern world, using a d10 Storyteller system. Its a different genre, a different playstyle, using a different base mechanic and its produced by a different company. I think it pretty reasonable for people not to complain about being able to use World of Darkness ideas in their d20 games. (though for those who really, really have to have WoD in their Dungeons and Dragons, there is always Monte Cook's d20 WoD)

 

[LuckyAdrastus]

But the books will wear out by use, at a slower rate maybe, so it's not like no replacement parts are ever needed. They also get destroyed by disasters. Plus, you may want them for new players and, the longer out of print they are, the harder that is.

So don't be too satisfied with your assumption that an old game never needs new parts.

This doesn't really scan. And old game DOESN'T need new parts to be played the way it was when WotC/TSR stopped supporting it. You can play 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e or any version right now as well as you ever could in the past. All the materials still exist. You can buy them on Amazon. Nothing has changed about them. They didn't require the Character Builder or have to be played to LFR guidelines, so it doesn't matter what rules those use.

It is true that by creating a new edition, and only creating new material for that edition, WotC is no longer proving new information to grow and change 3.5 or 1e (while still keeping them 1e or 3.5, whatever that means). But so is Archie Comics by producing new issues of "Betty and Veronica." Neither Betty and Veronica, nor 4e, contain new material for 3.5. But neither eliminates the already existing material.

So why is 4e the villian, but Bettie and Veronica isn't?

It is possible that in the future you may no longer be able to find old copies of obscure D&D books (though really, it's not that hard to find out-of-print books) but is that the fault of WotC? If there aren't enough buyers to justify WotC or another company selling the older books, why should they? There is a pro-3.5 thing here. Apparently, enough people like 3.5 to justify another company (Paizo) making new material for it (Pathfinder). Bully for 3.5! I still don't see how 4e impacts it negatively.

It does seem, like the OP stated, that there is a double standard here for a WotC products vs. non-WotC products.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Old games also benefit from new people. And as the game is longer out of print, the materials get harder to find making it harder to bring in new players.

THIS.

This was my biggest worry when I decided that 4E was not for me. I seriously considered giving up RPG after 25+ years because I was worried about the player pool for the game I liked was going to dry up to next to nothing. The search for quality players would have dried up to the point where the effort to find good players would be more than the effort made to actually play.

Which is why I was so happy why Paizo decided to produce he Pathfinder RPG. Anxiety AVERTED.

 

[Mercurius]

Put me down in the "I like my game to have periodic improvements" camp. It'd be nice if WotC could somehow magically produce the perfect game all at once and never need to change it, but in the world of tabletop RPGs, which is only about a generation old, there is still lots of neat innovation I'd like to include in my games. I'm very happy that WotC does this, otherwise we'd still have broken battleragers, or I wouldn't soon be able to build a boss halfing battlemind who wields a rapier and defends about as well as your average dwarf paladin.

I share this perspective as well. Of course some folks will get upset with the implication that one (newer) edition includes innovations that another (older) edition does not. This is why talking about the change of the game over time as "evolutionary" or as some kind of qualitative progression is highly problematic because it implies newer is better. I don't think this is always the case, and there are things about older editions that I miss or wish WotC hadn't left by the wayside or changed, but overall I enjoy an evolving, living game. I also recognize that my personal proclivities cannot be paramount for WotC (although it would be nice!).

As has been pointed out, at length, there are a lot of people with excellent reason to feel otherwise.

And that it is a six wheeled car with square tires into the bargain.

This thread is beginning to close in on edition war territory. You are not going to change opinions by shouting 'it ain't so!', 'cause for a lot of people yes, yes it is.

The Auld Grump

First of all, let's not go there. In my experience many, even most, "Edition Wars" are not started by one person bashing another's edition of choice, but by one person accusing another of starting an Edition War. So please refrain - it is not my intention to insult or attack anyone, or even say that any particular edition sucks.

My point being, this isn't an edition war and don't make it one by saying it is.

As for the rest, I hear and accept what people are saying, I just don't agree with it, or rather I think it is a case of "misplaced ire." No one has to like the new six-wheeled car or buy it, because it doesn't mean you have to take the car in your garage to the junk yard. Keep on driving it, there are plenty of parts still available to keep it running for as long as you want to.

So while I can understand being disappointed that the company did not go in a direction that one would have wanted, and I can relate with criticizing that company and discussing what one likes and doesn't like about that direction (believe me, I have plenty of dislikes), let's just not say that it ruins the car we already have, or that it means we wasted our money or cannot find ways to enjoy both four and six wheeled cars or, yes, use parts interchangeably with a bit of creativity.

I thought you had asked why one company seemed to get more grief than other companies. Others had already tried pointing out you were creating a strawman/apples and oranges argument. I just tried illustrating that same point in a different way.

I think your original post was a little misleading if you don't want people to explain why one gets more grief than the other. In fact, I'm starting to suspect that you really just wanted complain about some fans who were upset at innovations that did not upset you. I think it should go without saying that some fans are fine with changes made. That says nothing, however about the nature of the changes.

I apologize if my original post was misleading. It wasn't meant to corner a specific question but to open an inquiry with many possible areas of conversation. I was not arguing a specific point, but offering some perspectives and questions.

And I must admit that you are, at least to some degree, right that I am complaining about fans being upset about innovations, but again, it is not that they are upset or disappointed, it is the degree to which they are upset and even offended, and the (mistaken, imo) conclusion of "invalidation" or "incompatibility." Which leads me to...

Moreover, I really don't understand your invalidate argument. What do you mean "invalidate?" I really don't understand your use of the word nor do I think that anyone is arguing older products are "invalid". I think the complaint is that they are "incompatible."

When discussing the latest model of car, if I dislike the new diesel engine and the shape of the body, I'm not going to be convinced its a wonderful car by those that tell me I can switch out the engine and rebuild the body myself.

But that's not the point. No one has to think the new car is wonderful, or even buy the new car. The point, or my point, is that the new car does not make the old car undriveable. Look at Pathfinder, for instance. That it is a great example of fans of 3.5E banding together and bringing out a new edition of their favorite game. They were pro-active and made the game they wanted.

I can understand how one would be disappointed when WotC no longer produces new material for their favorite (version of their) game. I can see how what new material comes out is not easily compatible. But nor is it totally uncompatible or could not be made useful with a bit of tweaking, time, and creativity. Furthermore, there is enough 3.5/OGL material to last a lifetime, and then some. That is one of the reasons that 4E came out--the 3.5/OGL market was saturated, it was drenched. As I have argued, 4E was inevitable; it might have been a bit too soon, but if it hadn't been 2008 it would have been by 2010 or 2011, and the danger is slipping into another dark age.

Moreover, if I have a garage full of parts that have worked on a variety of models, I'm going to be a little put out when the manufacturer switches to a different engine which uses none of the old parts. I'm going to be even more upset if I'm an enthusiast who finds out that the company discontinued the manufacturing of Last Year's engine parts and, even worse, stopped the distribution of repair manuals for Last Year's car because they are only going to support and offer repairs for the very latest model exclusively. In fact, I likely will end up taking my business to the car manufacturer who is still building those older parts and offering technical support for the older engine.

Just to be clear, I am not arguing that everyone should just suck it up and play 4E - that would be ridonkulous, especially considering that 3.5 and Pathfinder are excellent games that better suit certain proclivities. Nothing wrong with that! I think that is part of what 3.5ists react to in the "edition war," that they feel they are supposed to conform to something they don't want to conform to. Again, ridonkulous.

I personally love the fact that there are numerous, somewhat distinct version of the great game of Dungeons & Dragons. I like the different flavors, some more than others. And I find that nothing has been lost, all of my old material still has utility, still has value and worth, and yes, is still "compatible" if we use the term loosely and are willing to play with things a bit. To be honest, while I like 4E I can't wait for 5E, if only out of sheer curiosity. To me it is like going to a car museum and looking at different versions over time, seeing how they all have their beauty, but also seeing how each form fits and expresses the time it was manufactured in. Time moves on and we shouldn't resist that. We can still have a particular fondness for an older model and drive it around town, especially in this age where all information--and plenty of old parts--is readily available. But that shouldn't make us angry when the car company wants to try something new and come out with a newer model.

 

[LuckyAdrastus]

There has obviously been a breakdown of communication somewhere on my part, or the threads have got crossed or something because I don't remember ever complaining about 4e errata. Its not really a subject much on my radar. My refrence to the "older manuals" and "current support" was meant to be a reference to PDF support of older, out of print products.

The question I was originally addressing is why one company gets complaints and another does not. The short answer is that the nature of the changes is such that it causes some people to be upset.

As for comparing the ability to port stuff from WoD to 4e to the ability to port from 3e into 4e....
3e and 4e both have the name Dungeons and Dragons on them and both claim to be descendants of the game developed by Arneson and Gygax. They are both about sword and sorcery fantasy heroes in a fantasy world fighting monsters. They are the same genre, have the same name and are even made by the same company. I think it is pretty reasonable to think there should be some relationship between one edition of dungeons and dragons and another.

WoD on the other hand is a game about being a monster in a modern world, using a d10 Storyteller system. Its a different genre, a different playstyle, using a different base mechanic and its produced by a different company. I think it pretty reasonable for people not to complain about being able to use World of Darkness ideas in their d20 games. (though for those who really, really have to have WoD in their Dungeons and Dragons, there is always Monte Cook's d20 WoD)

If you aren't critical of 4e errata, then I apologize for saying you are. This is a thread about how 4e errata is (allegedly) criticized according to a different standard than non-4e errata, so I assumed that is what you were talking about. Well you know what happens when you assume...

On your second point (about incompatibility) it is absolutely true that 4e is non-compatible with 3.5. It is a different game with only some similarities (much of the Tolkein-inspired fluff, some of the names of certain mechanics). To repeat, 3.5 and 4e are almost totally different games.

But so are 3.5 and many other fantasy RPGS, be they Tolkein-esque (Dragon Age, I believe), psuedo-historical (Ars Magica) or whatever. Why does 4e have the responsibility to be 3.5, where the other games don't?