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

[TheAuldGrump]

irst 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.

And in my estimation most, perhaps all, of edition wars begin when someone points out a problem and someone else shouts 'you're wrong' and tries to invalidate the problem rather than address it. As soon as you started doing that you began the journey into the warzone.

The point Wicht made was that rather than a new edition WotC introduced a new game with the same name. The point is valid, whether you agree or not. Substantial changes were made, and for many conversion is no longer a prospect that brings any pleasure.

Folks can and do convert between 3.X and Pathfinder with ease. Folks can and do convert between 3.X/Pathfinder and 4.0 with difficulty. Even WotC did not bother with a conversion guide. The first is a translation, the second is a reinterpretation, nearly as much work as starting a 4e adventure from scratch. (Which may well be less than starting a 3.X adventure from scratch. 4e does make that easier, from all accounts.)

Converting a setting book to a new version of the same game engine is not as radical as creating a new game that is largely incompatible. Nor is it the same as creating a whole freakin' new world and trying to say it is the same setting. (Good thing I didn't like Forgotten Realms anyway....)

Producing a new edition of a game that is backwards and forwards compatible through eight generations of the same game engine is not the same as completely changing the game engine. (Heck, it is easier to convert a critter from 1st edition Rune-Quest to the current edition of Call of Cthulhu than it is from second edition AD&D to 3.X....)

That is why WotC is getting complaints and Paizo and Chaosium aren't.

Incorporating rules errata and changes in a new printing is exactly the same as incorporating rules errata and changes in a new printing, and that is why neither Crafty nor WotC deserve any complaints when they do so, nor do they get many. Errata happens, it is the nature of the game. Players will find problems that the playtesters missed. It is a bigger pool of monkeys.

And, for whatever it is worth, I never had any trouble converting between 3.0 and 3.5 - which version of 3.X a supplement was for never mattered to me when making purchases. I never did quite understand why folks stopped getting the 3.0 stuff. There is a greater difference between 3.X and 3.P, but again, I can do it on the fly if needed or in a very short time with a pencil.

The Auld Grump

 

[Mistwell]

Folks can and do convert between 3.X and Pathfinder with ease. Folks can and do convert between 3.X/Pathfinder and 4.0 with difficulty.

I cannot speak to Pathfinder conversion. But as far as 3.X to 4e, I have never found it to be a difficult task. Hundreds of people on this very board have expressed the same sentiment that they have not had much trouble with it. And particularly if you have the DDI tools available, it's really quite simple to do in general.

In fact, I think if you have a relatively small amount of experience with 4e encounter creation, then adventure conversion of any kind in 4e using the DDI is quite fast. In my opinion, with the DDI, conversion from any edition of D&D, or even another RPG entirely, goes faster with 4e than any other game I've tried. The mechanics just fly by, in easily printed or cut-and-past format, and you can focus on the story elements more than spending time on mechanics.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I cannot speak to Pathfinder conversion. But as far as 3.X to 4e, I have never found it to be a difficult task. Hundreds of people on this very board have expressed the same sentiment that they have not had much trouble with it. And particularly if you have the DDI tools available, it's really quite simple to do in general.

In fact, I think if you have a relatively small amount of experience with 4e encounter creation, then adventure conversion of any kind in 4e using the DDI is quite fast. In my opinion, with the DDI, conversion from any edition of D&D, or even another RPG entirely, goes faster with 4e than any other game I've tried. The mechanics just fly by, in easily printed or cut-and-past format, and you can focus on the story elements more than spending time on mechanics.

However, as soon as you say 'with the DDI' you add an additional cost per month - which substitutes expense for difficulty. And there are no third party software game aids allowed to likewise fill that niche. (Yes, I like PCGen.)

In most regards it is a mechanical substitution of 4e for 3e, not conversion of 3e to 4e. All critters and classes are completely different. For Pathfinder I mostly make due by taking a pencil and scribbling in the combat maneuver and defense. Time is literally seconds per entry. And I don't have to pay a premium every month to do so.

I am not saying that DDI is a bad thing, nor am I saying that is not a justifiable expense - if it had been around for 3.X then I would likely have used it. The exchange of expense for difficulty is probably worth it. But the exchange is there.

The Auld Grump

 

[LuckyAdrastus]

It is definitely true that you cannot convert 3.5 directly to 4e. They are two different games, though set in the same genre, and with linked titles. But definitely different games. In switching from 3.5 to 4e, WotC stopped making new material for one game, and started making new material for a new game. However, they've don that before -- 2.e to 3e is nearly a new game. I just don't see what is wrong with that, though?

I don't see why there is an imperative for D&D to remain backwards compatible through all of its editions. There has been a lot of innovation in RPG design since the eras of (the much-missed) Gygax and Arneson. Why not implement that new game design expertise? Especially since the old material remains available and is still fully playable. At the meetup I play in, there are regular 3.5/Pathfinder games and also some older D&D games too.

It still comes down, to me, to the idea that WotC (or TSR, or anyone other company) has the right to stop making new material for one game, and start making new material for a new game. While I can see disagreeing with the new direction, I still don't understand asserting that it is wrong at a base level for a company to even try going in a new direction.

And yes, I understand that if you feel that D&D should only be 3.5, or 1e, or whatever, it might rankle to have other versions of the game out there. But there have always been multiple versions of the game, so I don't see why WotC is the villian here, but everyone who ever house-ruled a game isn't.

 

[LuckyAdrastus]

Apparently it does matter what D&D to quite a few people. It matters to the people who have proclaimed that 3.5 was broken and 4E is god's gift from heaven and they will never touch 3.5 ever again. It matters to the people who play 3.5 and Pathfinder who hate 4E with and utterly irrational passion. It matters to the old school players who view any new edition as sacrilege. And it matters to those of us in the middle who just want to have a large enough player pool to play the games that we like (easier for those who play 4E. Not so much for those who are still playing older versions) So yes it does matter.

People who say 4e is the only right version, and 3.5 should never be touched and whoever made it is immoral b/c the 4e types don't like it are wrong. (IMHO).

People who say 3.5 is the only right version, and 4e should never be touched and whoever made it is immoral b/c the 3.5 types don't like it are wrong, too. (IMHO)

Old school players who say 1e (likely their house-ruled version of 1e) is the only right version, and the makers of the later editions are immoral are also wrong. (IMHO).

People who oppose 4e (or any edition) because they feel it will draw players away from their own preferred version are partially correct, in that 4e is a possible competitor to 3.5 for player attention. But, of course, so is Dragon Age, or Blue Rose, or Scrabble or Chess, or WoW, for that matter. 4e may do a "better" job of drawing players away from 3.5, because it is similar, and is designed to fix certain "problems" in 3.5 that are perceived by some (but not all, of course). Consider: it is hard to find people to play Cricket in the US, because more Americans left it for Baseball in the 19th century (rightly or wrongly). But you can still play cricket in the US if you and your buddies want to. By analogy, 4e is also just a different game from 3.5, and no more inherently wrong for being different, and therefore a competitor for players attention, than any other game or activity would be.

 

[Nagol]

It is definitely true that you cannot convert 3.5 directly to 4e. They are two different games, though set in the same genre, and with linked titles. But definitely different games. In switching from 3.5 to 4e, WotC stopped making new material for one game, and started making new material for a new game. However, they've don that before -- 2.e to 3e is nearly a new game. I just don't see what is wrong with that, though?

I don't see why there is an imperative for D&D to remain backwards compatible through all of its editions. There has been a lot of innovation in RPG design since the eras of (the much-missed) Gygax and Arneson. Why not implement that new game design expertise? Especially since the old material remains available and is still fully playable. At the meetup I play in, there are regular 3.5/Pathfinder games and also some older D&D games too.

It still comes down, to me, to the idea that WotC (or TSR, or anyone other company) has the right to stop making new material for one game, and start making new material for a new game. While I can see disagreeing with the new direction, I still don't understand asserting that it is wrong at a base level for a company to even try going in a new direction.

And yes, I understand that if you feel that D&D should only be 3.5, or 1e, or whatever, it might rankle to have other versions of the game out there. But there have always been multiple versions of the game, so I don't see why WotC is the villian here, but everyone who ever house-ruled a game isn't.

I think you're moving the goalposts. No one in the thread that I've seen is saying WotC is a villain because it dared make a new game.

The question was why does WotC get more flak for replacing D&D 3.5 with 4e than these other companies got for replacing world pieces with updated replacements.

 

[LuckyAdrastus]

I think you're moving the goalposts. No one in the thread that I've seen is saying WotC is a villain because it dared make a new game.

The question was why does WotC get more flak for replacing D&D 3.5 with 4e than these other companies got for replacing world pieces with updated replacements.

I'd largely agree, though I think the premise of the original question was "why does WotC get more flak for changes than other companies get for similar changes?" Many of the posters here who play Pathfinder have disputed that the changes mentioned in the OP are of the same magnitude of the changes from 3.5 to 4e (or from 4e to "Essentials/4e/4.5/4e with errata/whatever, though many would dispute there is much of a change). I'm not especially familiar with Pathfinder (and would avoid praising/criticizing stuff I'm unfamiliar with) so I don't know how extensive those changes are.

I'm more chiming in because I have observed that there is a subset of critics of 4e/WotC who seem motivated by their dislike of 4e to criticize 4e/WotC merely for existing/making new rules/or no matter what design decision is made on a certain issue (i.e. they will criticize WotC no matter what it does). Obviously, that doesn't apply to all critics, and there has been some substantive criticisms. But other stuff just seems like hyperbole to me.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

People who oppose 4e (or any edition) because they feel it will draw players away from their own preferred version are partially correct, in that 4e is a possible competitor to 3.5 for player attention. But, of course, so is Dragon Age, or Blue Rose, or Scrabble or Chess, or WoW, for that matter. 4e may do a "better" job of drawing players away from 3.5, because it is similar, and is designed to fix certain "problems" in 3.5 that are perceived by some (but not all, of course). Consider: it is hard to find people to play Cricket in the US, because more Americans left it for Baseball in the 19th century (rightly or wrongly). But you can still play cricket in the US if you and your buddies want to. By analogy, 4e is also just a different game from 3.5, and no more inherently wrong for being different, and therefore a competitor for players attention, than any other game or activity would be.

Lucky, I'm just curious and I'm not trying to be a douche here or anything, but do you actually read what people post or do you just willfully ignore it so that you can make your point? Because I'm pretty sure that we're discussing RPG's here and youre going on about scrabble, chess, Betty and Veronica comics and such to use as comparisons. I think that I'd take your comparisons a little more seriously if they were closer to apple to apple comparisons as opposed to apples to WAVE MOTION GUN! comparisons. See what I'm saying?

Also were comparing 3.5, 4E and older editions of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS because were actually discussing...DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS at this point (with Pathfinder being the exception because it's basically upgraded 3.5). D&D being the worlds most well known and popular role playing game. The 800lb gorilla of the RPG world. Even the closest competitor probably isnt selling half to volume of what D&D sells. THAT's why it's the barometer that all other RPG's are measured against in terms of popularity and people who have played at one point.

My point with all of this is that the only thing big enough to pull D&D players away from one edition of D&D is...another edition of D&D. And I'm saying this as someone who runs Pahtfinder as his FRPG as choice.

 

[LuckyAdrastus]

Lucky, I'm just curious and I'm not trying to be a douche here or anything, but do you actually read what people post or do you just willfully ignore it so that you can make your point? Because I'm pretty sure that we're discussing RPG's here and youre going on about scrabble, chess, Betty and Veronica comics and such to use as comparisons. I think that I'd take your comparisons a little more seriously if they were closer to apple to apple comparisons as opposed to apples to WAVE MOTION GUN! comparisons. See what I'm saying?

I dunno what to say, exactly. I've been reading other people's posts and trying to respond to them politely (to the degree the internet supports etiquette). I've been having what I think is a very constructive dialog with Wicht, for example. I don't understand your anger.

I'm not sure why you don't understand the comparison I've been making to other kinds of games. I'm arguing (as a subset of the general discussion here) that 4e and 3.5 are different games. Therefore I think comparing them is on the scale of fairness as comparing D&D to Dragon Age, or Checkers to Chess. 3.5 and 4e are both tabletop RPGs, and they both use similar flavor (which is heavily based on Tolkein), but they are different games. Just like Checkers, Chess, and Backgammon are all turn-based board games involving pieces, but are different games.

That's the point I'm addressing -- it is no more fair to fault 4e for not being 3.5 than to fault Dragon Age, Scrabble, or, yes, Betty and Veronica comics for not being 3.5. 4e isn't supposed to be 3.5. I'm using examples like Scrabble and comics because I think they illustrate the example well and humorously, but if you'd like, you can replace every reference to "Scrabble" with a reference to "Dragon Age RPG," or some other Tolkein-esque fantasy RPG that isn't 3.5.

EDIT: I see that there is a point that D&D 4e has a special obligation to remain similiar to D&D 3.5 because they are both called D&D. But I think that necessarily leads to the proposition that games should never fundamentally change over time if they keep any part of the same name (4e does state up front it is a different edition). But most games have evolved fundamentally over time while keeping the same or similar names. American Football, for example, evolved out of European Football (one of the biggest innovations being that you could first hold the ball, and then throw it). Now both games exist simultaneously, sometimes using the same name (Football) and sometimes different names (Soccer in the US for European Football). Chess is another game that has change greatly, as well as baseball and basketball.

I'm using analogies b/c I think they can be illuminating, even if other disagree with them. I disagreed with Wicht's car analogy, but I still thought it was fun, colorful, and illuminating.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

I'd largely agree, though I think the premise of the original question was "why does WotC get more flak for changes than other companies get for similar changes?" Many of the posters here who play Pathfinder have disputed that the changes mentioned in the OP are of the same magnitude of the changes from 3.5 to 4e (or from 4e to "Essentials/4e/4.5/4e with errata/whatever, though many would dispute there is much of a change). I'm not especially familiar with Pathfinder (and would avoid praising/criticizing stuff I'm unfamiliar with) so I don't know how extensive those changes are.

Again have you actually read what people posted about the OP's Pathfinder comparison? That he was WAAAAAAAY off the mark. That the book that he's talking about ISNT a core rulebook up date but a world book fluff update and doesnt invalidate ANYTHING that came before it. Did you read that part of the thread? Because it kinda seems to me that you missed it.

I'm more chiming in because I have observed that there is a subset of critics of 4e/WotC who seem motivated by their dislike of 4e to criticize 4e/WotC merely for existing/making new rules/or no matter what design decision is made on a certain issue (i.e. they will criticize WotC no matter what it does). Obviously, that doesn't apply to all critics, and there has been some substantive criticisms. But other stuff just seems like hyperbole to me.

I think that the initial group that had problems with 4E have moved on to play other games. I'll agree and say that there are alot of people who are still sore about how WOTC handled the transition to 4E and refuse to give them any patronage of any sort. I stopped buying stuff from them simply because they stopped making stuff that I wanted. I recently pickup Castle Ravenloft from Amazon fo $40 (pre-ordered months ago). While I dont like 4E for m FRPG of choice I think it'll be great as a boardgame and plan to play with my 8 year old this weekend.