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

[Wicht]

And since Wicht's post is a hyperbolic exercise in question-begging...

Which post was that?

 

[Jor-El]

I believe, that if Paizo came to Gencon next year and announced Pathfinder 2.0, and that it was going to be incompatible with current Pathfinder rules, and all 3E material, there would be just as much outrage.

On top of that, if they announced that they were re-concepting Golarian, and changing some of its core assumptions, moving the timeline by several centuries, and introducing a world-changing disaster, there would likewise be just as much outrage.

 

[Mercurius]

AuldGrump, this is getting ridiculous. I have already conceded that my comparison of Paizo's world guide with 4E (or whatever) was inaccurate, yet you keep arguing that point even after I have moved on to other (more interesting) aspects of the conversation. What more do you want me to do, bend over and let you spank my bottom?

Secondly, stop accusing me of starting an edition war. Nuff said.

Finally, I am not, "disagreeing with the fact that people are stating their opinions, how they are stating their opinions, and that those opinions disagree with your own...." That is a ridiculous statement, AuldGrump. Disagreeing with someone's opinion and pointing out what I find to be fallacious about it is not disagreeing that they have opinions, or how they are sitting, or that they disagree with my own.

 

[Mercurius]

Beginning of the End, I am not sure what you mean by "Rule Zero Fallacy." Please explain.

As for the rest, good idea - when I get a chance I will start a new thread on exactly that subject. And good points, btw.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Beginning of the End, I am not sure what you mean by "Rule Zero Fallacy." Please explain.

"There's no problem because the DM can fix it" is not a refutation of "there's a problem". It, in fact, concedes the argument and admits that there is a problem before attempting to dismiss it in such a fashion that no problems are ever considered relevant.

 

[Herschel]

WotC made it clear that one of the driving forces behind 4e was to clear out the mass of published work so they could start from a clean slate. There are some good reasons for that, but it does ask the folks who have bought so much of WotC's books to put them aside and ante up again. And following along seems of limited value: buy a new system so we can sell you the same kinds of rules supplements we sold you the last edition, all over again.

It's either that or asking them to buy re-hashed and re-packaged rules supplements they already sold you for the current edition.

Which sounds like a bigger sales base?

 

[Mercurius]

"There's no problem because the DM can fix it" is not a refutation of "there's a problem". It, in fact, concedes the argument and admits that there is a problem before attempting to dismiss it in such a fashion that no problems are ever considered relevant.

OK, I get it. I don't mean to refute the problem, but rather say that what is often happening is people are making mountains out of mole-hills. The "problem" is not insurmountable and only as difficult as one wants to make it.

I would like to see an example of what someone means when they say that converting, say, a 1E module to 4E is very difficult. What elements are particularly difficult to convert? Let's say we're converting an encounter vs. a party of drow. How hard is it to use Monster Builder, or just the Monster Manual, to draw up a party of drow and then adjust it to be an appropriate challenge to the character party? Or how difficult is it to turn a 10th level 3.x fighter into a 10th level 4E fighter? Or to adjust damage from traps to work with the 4E scale? Or to use the 4E skill system? I am honestly not sure what is so difficult, or what area of conversion poses a particular problem.

If anything I would say that converting to 4E is easier than before because of tools like Monster Builder. AuldGrump says that costs $10 a month, but you can get a subscription for $10 now and then cancel and get all the monsters in three Monster Manuals plus tons of articles, other books, etc, and never need to update again.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

OK, I get it. I don't mean to refute the problem, but rather say that what is often happening is people are making mountains out of mole-hills. The "problem" is not insurmountable and only as difficult as one wants to make it.

I see what you did there. "I dont mean to refute the problem, but if you have a problem it's YOU because you're being a douche/stupid/whiner whatever."
CLEVER.

I dont ever recall saying that the problem of conversion was so insurmountable if you can please quote me on that one i'd appreciate it. What i said was if you have to change what is supposed to be a conversion so much from what it was originally what was the point of doing the conversion to begin with? What I said was that the conversion winds up being way to much work to balance within the framework of the new system that it's almost not worth doing the conversion.

I would like to see an example of what someone means when they say that converting, say, a 1E module to 4E is very difficult. What elements are particularly difficult to convert? Let's say we're converting an encounter vs. a party of drow. How hard is it to use Monster Builder, or just the Monster Manual, to draw up a party of drow and then adjust it to be an appropriate challenge to the character party? Or how difficult is it to turn a 10th level 3.x fighter into a 10th level 4E fighter? Or to adjust damage from traps to work with the 4E scale? Or to use the 4E skill system? I am honestly not sure what is so difficult, or what area of conversion poses a particular problem.

If anything I would say that converting to 4E is easier than before because of tools like Monster Builder. AuldGrump says that costs $10 a month, but you can get a subscription for $10 now and then cancel and get all the monsters in three Monster Manuals plus tons of articles, other books, etc, and never need to update again.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...can-why-cant-wizards-coast-2.html#post5320402

It just looks like that you DONT WANT to see what the particular problem is or was. I already told you I'm not interested on giving WOTC more money just to use their tool for a game that I may or may not (definitely not at this point and time) continue playing.

Earlier this morning, I was writing up and at length comparison of converting a 10 man Drow group from Descent into the Depths of the earth from 1E to 2E to 3E to 4E. But then I realized that no matter how I broke it down in whatever detail you would still nullify the argument by declaring handwavium. Why bother at that point? You dont want to acknowledge that it's an issue. End of story.

 

[Alan Shutko]

It's either that or asking them to buy re-hashed and re-packaged rules supplements they already sold you for the current edition.

Which sounds like a bigger sales base?

Well, they could make new things rather than presuming that all they can do is rehash rules for one edition or another.

This is much harder if the focus is on rules rather than setting or stories.

 

[Mercurius]

I dont ever recall saying that the problem of conversion was so insurmountable if you can please quote me on that one i'd appreciate it. What i said was if you have to change what is supposed to be a conversion so much from what it was originally what was the point of doing the conversion to begin with? What I said was that the conversion winds up being way to much work to balance within the framework of the new system that it's almost not worth doing the conversion.

To answer the first, look to the last. Replace "insurmountable" with "way too much work" and, voila, you answered your own question in the very same paragraph. Bravo!

But to address the second, you say that it is "way too much work" to convert stuff into 4E, others say it is relatively easy. What's up with that?

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...can-why-cant-wizards-coast-2.html#post5320402

It just looks like that you DONT WANT to see what the particular problem is or was. I already told you I'm not interested on giving WOTC more money just to use their tool for a game that I may or may not (definitely not at this point and time) continue playing.

Earlier this morning, I was writing up and at length comparison of converting a 10 man Drow group from Descent into the Depths of the earth from 1E to 2E to 3E to 4E. But then I realized that no matter how I broke it down in whatever detail you would still nullify the argument by declaring handwavium. Why bother at that point? You dont want to acknowledge that it's an issue. End of story.

Again, tell me what the issue is, what is this "problem" that you (and presumably others) have but I (and presumably others) don't have? And how would you explain this difference, that some find it "way too much work" to convert and others don't?

Maybe it just comes down to different degrees of being a stickler for details. But if being a stickler for details disallows one from being able to easily convert something from one edition to another, while taking a more casual "handwavium" approach makes it relatively easy, why not loosen up on sticklerism? I mean, as with your kobold example, if it is really a matter of not being able to figure out the encounter level, why not just wing it and do what you think is right? Or, better yet, just play the edition you most enjoy and have done with it?

I personally don't care where you spend your money--I am not saying you should pay WotC. But again, what's the problem? Are you pissed off that they aren't making adventures for your game or edition of choice? That they're not making it easy for you? If conversion is the issue why bother at all? WotC is hardly flooding the market with 4E adventures--there are plenty more 3.x products out there to enjoy.