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

[slwoyach]

Nobody had to throw out their character sheet because a new setting book came out. How has this thread gotten this big when the very first response showed the premise of the OP to be false?

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Maybe we need to zero-in on what it is about an adventure that makes it worth converting. For me, it's the color, not the mechanics. For me, the adventure is about bullwugs and swamps and a temple and a special treasure and some NPC personalities and looks and room descriptions (things on the walls and floors, not necessarily the exact size of the room down to the foot). It's not about the specific mechanics of the bullywug guards. As long as they still do things vaguely similar to what they used to do in a mechanical sense, that's fine by me.

So, for me, converting from 1e bullywug adventure to a 4e bullywug adventure would be easy. I use the DDI (which isn't $10/month for your average user no matter how many times you quote that inaccurate sum (mine for example cost $59.40 a year, making it $4.95/mo)) to pop in the appropriate bullywug (or a similar creature that I rename a bullywug, or whatever). I'll need to add more bullywugs than the adventure originally used sometimes, due to the nature of the 4e combat system, but again that doesn't really change much about color. I MIGHT increase the size of a room, depending on what it looks like, but often that isn't necessary. And then I use the color from the adventure - because that is what matters to me.

My point is that, in my experience, it's relatively easy to convert an old adventure (from any earlier edition, or even another game) to 4e. It doesn't take "way too much work" to make it not worth doing. The hard part, which was gathering stats and balancing an encounter, is done for you by a machine.

 

[Mistwell]

Nobody had to throw out their character sheet because a new setting book came out. How has this thread gotten this big when the very first response showed the premise of the OP to be false?

Because the underlying question is still interesting to discuss even if the analogy was flawed.

 

[Azgulor]

Nobody had to throw out their character sheet because a new setting book came out. How has this thread gotten this big when the very first response showed the premise of the OP to be false?

Because for several posters in this thread, the real purpose is (perhaps) one or more of the following:

#10. Distract RPGers from the fact that Paizo has an entire business plan & multiple product lines surrounding a single fantasy world vs. WotC's use of 1-book & out & new setting every year.


#9. Solidify the transformation of the Editon War from the older conflicts of rules-based weapons/arguments to the newer conficts of publisher-based weapons/arguments.


#8. Relive the entire evolution of the D&D RPG from 3.0-->3.5-->4e-->Essentials within a single thread.


#7. Find new ways to have an Edition War without overtly starting an edition war. I hearby dub this thread the Covert Edition War, Edition Conflict, or Edition Reinforcing Action (pick one).


#6. Gloriously illustrate the axiom that "Internet debate" is an oxymoron.


#5. Convince people that liked 3.x but didn't care for 4e to shut up b/c their 3.x books haven't spontaneously combusted.


#4. Convince people that WotC is blameless for any decision regarding the evolution of D&D & the D&D brand.


#3. Convince people that it's irrational to criticize WotC & that they really weren't justified in viewing 4e, the handling or 4e, or the business plans of WotC as anything other than "good stuff". I mean, WotC's actions are the only course of action that makes any sense!


#2. Convince people that the same level or ire should be directed at companies (such as Paizo) so that WotC isn't being "unfairly picked on".


but I think the #1 answer is...

#1. Win the debate. Which debate you ask? Judging from this thread, it's a constantly moving target that seems to change the moment someone demonstrates an opposing viewpoint to 2-5 as perfectly valid.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

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!

So youre just content with sticking words into other peoples mouths and when they call you on it you blow it off. NICE. Insurmountable is not the same as too much work no matter how you try to slice it.

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?

Maybe because 4E was touted as a system that was balanced encounter wise as well as character wise. So when actually doing a test conversion it's pretty much only natural that one would use the rules as written in a new system before one starts flying off the cuff. It's why the rules are there to begin with as a baseline at best. Before any other assumptions can be made about the ruleset, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO USE THE RULESET as it was initially intended. Or that's how I do it at least.

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?

Again, read my response above. I'll also try to rewrite my Drow party conversion from Descent Into The Depths of The Earth. That is if it will actually matter since I'm obviously doing it wrong in your eyes anyway. Because obviously it's easier to go to the old fall back of anyone who has ANY problems with 4E hates WOTC and anyone who plays 4E.

And their families.

And their pets.

And the people who owe them money.

And their grandchildren.

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.

When WOTC stopped producing material for the game I played I went to Pathfinder. Now Paizo gets the bulk of my RPG money. I subscribed to their AP line and have been a subscriber since the beginning of it. I'm a subscriber to their RPG line. I have a monthly Pathfinder Group here in NYC that meets in the Complete Strategist. If I had the time I'd start up another group. So that's not it. I havent spent money on a WOTC product in over 2 years until recently (Castle Ravenloft pre-ordered from Amazon months ago).

I have a enough 3E/3.5 adventures, materials to last me a few life times.

I responded in this thread for one reason and one reason only. The assertion that somehow people who were were unable to convert or use older materials with 4E were somehow uncreative and or lazy. I took umbrage and responded. Why?

Because as I stated before I was leery of 4E when it was announced. There were a bunch of things that made me not a fan at the out set. But I've been that way before with other games and once I started running or playing them it was a different story. So I decided to give 4E it's fair due. I ordered the gift set from Amazon and when it arrived I set about converting one of my favorite modules to the new Edition for play at the local D&D meetup. And it was a real pain in the butt to do, FOLLOWING THE RULES FOR ENCOUNTER CREATION AS WRITTEN. Some areas wound up being very different than the original encounters. Some wound up being too weak others wound up being too powerful and so I FOLLOWING THE RULES FOR ENCOUNTER CREATION AS WRITTEN modified them. But when I did so again some of the encounters became very different.

It was only when I jettisoned the idea of converting and began creating encounters from scratch that I saw the potential for 4E. It was simple as hell. Waaaaaaay easier than the 3.5 method. And If I were still into creating and writing my own adventures I might have switched over to 4E. But I have a metric assload of material from 3E that simply would not be used with 4E. That coupled with the fact that after having run a few sessions of 4E I did not like the way that it played. So 3.5 it was.

I have never said that 4E was a bad game. I've always maintained that it's a wel designed game. It's just not a game I'm interested in running or playing. But the idea that anyone who had issues with 4E is some kind of uncreative, lazy jerk really rubbed me the wrong way. Now it may not have been your intention to come across like that, but that's how it came across to me. And I responded in kind. Now if I've come across like an agressive douche, it's mostly like I feel that you and Lucky have come across like dismissive ones. Not a good way to respond I admit but the tone in this thread from the both of you definitely didnt do much to promote a mutual understanding.

I'm going to walk away now because again I dont see us coming to an understanding on this point. You're going to maintain that I'm doing something wrong and should change how I do things. And I'm going to maintain that the rules are there for a reason especially when you're trying to learn how things are done in the ruleset. So I'll go back to occasionally flipping through the 4E MM and playing Pathfinder and you'll go back to doing whatever it is that you do.

 

[Umbran]

#6. Gloriously illustrate the axiom that "Internet debate" is an oxymoron.

I find it gloriously ironic that you put this in a list that is essentially trying to to be massively dismissive.

How about this, folks - if you don't like this discussion, don't read the thread. If you don't like the discussion, but read the thread anyway, don't respond. If you don't like the discussion, read the thread, and somehow lack the will to resist responding, don't be a big old jerk about it.

That should be simple enough. Thank you for your time and attention, all.

 

[Mistwell]

Bah, seemed wiser to edit this post, as it was not focused on the topic.

 

[Azgulor]

EN World has only a few rules. One of them is that you don't comment on moderation in-thread. If you have a problem or question, please take it to e-mail or PM. Thanks.
~Umbran

 

[Mercurius]

Shin, I'm sorry if I come across as dismissive or if it seems that I think your way of playing is "badwrongfun". I honestly apologize for that. I'd also like to clarify that I do NOT think that "anyone who had issues with 4E is some kind of uncreative, lazy jerk"; first of all, I have some "issues" (or dislikes) with 4E, so if that was my perspective than I would consider myself an uncreative, lazy jerk! Well, I am a bit lazy and can be a jerk, but...

I can appreciate you wanting to follow the RAW. As we discussed earlier, our disagreement may simply be a difference in style. I do think that a little more looseness can better facilitate conversion, but I also admit to never having played in an official tournament of any kind, so I can see how you might want to be more of a stickler in that case.

One final note. I think Mistwell hit upon a key point - that converting an adventure is about the color, not the mechanics. This is my view as well and why I don't think it is hard to convert, say, Vault of the Drow from a mechanical standpoint. I've DMed numerous forms of D&D and 4E is by far the easiest to prepare for, especially with Monster Builder. Actually, one of the great things about Monster Builder is that you could take a module like Vault of the Drow and adjust it to whatever level your party is; Monster Builder allows you to take any monster and raise or lower the level.

Anyhow, I hope we can end this on a good note and to that I will only say - happy gaming!

 

[deinol]

I'm way late to this party, but I'll tell you why I'm bothered by Wizards pulling their back catalog of PDFs. Back in the height of 3.5 I was an active customer playing D&D. I am also fond of old modules. Several times I picked up PDFs of older modules that I never had a chance to get. Adventures like Vecna Lives or the Lost City. I would convert them to 3rd edition and run them, or just read them for ideas. Now if I want to rediscover an old classic, I have to track it down on ebay. I've got nothing against 4E, and want to check out their new Dark Sun stuff. It also makes me want to fill in the holes in my collection with the older Dark Sun material that is hard to find.

I applaud Redbrick's decision to keep their Classic Earthdawn PDFs and POD titles available even though they don't support them anymore.

I can also say I'll give Paizo grief if they come out with a revised Pathfinder edition in less than 8 years time.