Pathfinder 1E D&D or Pathfinder?

[Agamon]

It's not the setting, it's how you use it. A bad setting with a great GM is infinitely better than a great setting with a bad GM.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Ditto. The only published setting I really give a hoot about is Planescape, but I mostly run home brew.


I do like how nicely symmetrical most of the Great Wheel is. But the details have always bugged me. For example, having a bunch of opposing elemental planes is great...but fire isn't the opposite of water darnit! One is a chemical reaction, the other's a liquid compound. Earth and air being opposites makes sense, but those quasi-elemental planes don't! (Negative energy changes earth to dust, which is merely a different type of matter, but completely annihilates air? What?!) I could go on, but you get the idea.

I don't think there's a single outer plane that I don't like, but most of them feel contrived for being forced into the symmetry of the Outer Ring. For example, Arborea's champions of CG are a fairly uniform breed of super-elves, while the champions of CE come in all kinds of random forms. As do the champions of LG, to a lesser degree. It just feels forced. Which is why they're all part of my 4e home brew cosmology, as a sample of the many random planes floating thru the Astral Sea.

This post made my heart sing.

(I am not being sarcastic, if that's not clear on messageboards). It really did.


On the one hand, I LOVE LOVE LOVE the great wheel. I like the idea of balance and extremeism (sp), and I love that it's done on multiple levels (inner versus outer planes, astral verses ethereal).

What I don't love is how it's a "draft" version. I feel like TSR had some totally kickass ideas that were faulty in some ways, flawed in others, and revolutionary in yet more possible ways.

So...I loves it..I hateses it...but, in the end, I find it imperfectly inspiring.



In some distant ways, that's how I feel about Golarion. However, I think it has more details that fit nicely, but less overall cosmology that blends in a solid way.


But, in either/both cases.... I always feel that the more info provided, the more I can use...and the more I can ignore (as a DM).

Give me a dozen ideas and let me cherry pick the 2 best for my campaign.

Do that 100 times and I have 200 fantastic ideas (and 1000 ideas I won't use currently).

But the thing is, I might very well use 200 of those ideas for my futurespace or steampunk or hardcore conanesque fantasy or lovecraftian campaign.

Give me 1200 good ideas, and I'll likely enjoy having read them. I like reading rpg books...but, and this is very important for me anyway....I REALLY LIKE RE-READING THEM TO PILFER IDEAS FOR NEW GENRES AND SETTINGS.

I own hundreds of rpg books. I'll say this...no book (dragonlance, golarion, dark sun --2nd or 4th ed, ptolus, etc) gets only one read or consideration.



I love the IDEA of worlds. For me they transcend rules.

I like several (and hate several) of the D&D worlds (in particular, I'm somewhat damning about the current forgotten realms...what were they thinking?!?). But, and on the other hand, I LOVE the revitalization of worlds like Dark Sun.


A world, to me, is a story. The OP question is akin to "is narnia better or worse than middle earth?"

I can't answer that. But I can say that my gaming reflects consistent, realistic worlds that don't mess around.

If you know your "worlds" then you know where I stand.

It is sad to categorize a gaming world as one that is "inconsistent, unrealistic, and messed around with"....but I think we might just be able to find that.


There are great D&D worlds.

There is a great (and may be multiple great) pathfinder worlds (if we look to 3pps).



My advice to any company who has created (or inherited) a world is to treat it with respect...even if it is overbloated and in need of a revision.



I'm looking forward to see where Oathbound goes next.


(EDIT: to be completely clear, and minimize any passive aggressiveness: I'm dismayed at WotC's treatment of Forgotten Realms, OK with their treatment of Eberron, Impressed with their treatment of Dark Sun) I'm also wondering/concerned where other worlds/realms like Dragonlance and Ravenloft are headed. Simultaneously, I'm excited about elements of Golarion but also not feeling a nice synergy or completeness to that world. It has some lovely elements, in particular thoste that are based upon underutilied cultures. I don't claim one or anothe is better at this point...BUT I think we may be close to a breaking point. If WotC doesn't retain the importance of worlds (e.g. everything is core) then I think they'll be missing something big. If Paizo doesn't solidify/integrate their world, then I thin they'll be missing out on a real setting over a hodgepodge of separate interesting (but very clearly separate) settings.)

I think both companies have room to improve. I also think that they could learn a bit from one another (in som e cases not currently, but overall) in HOW to improve.


I'd love to see a really coherent and kick-ass setting from either company.

 

[Herschel]

At this years Ennies, Paizo (Pathfinder) won every category for which they were entered. They beat WotC head-to-head in "Best Monster/Adversary", "Best Setting", and most improtantly "Fans’ Choice, Best Publisher".

Last year (2010) Paizo also won every category for which they were entered!

At GenCon, Pathfinder Society ran about 40+ full tables every slot. This is up from about 30 tables per slot last year. They ran 51 tables (325+ people) at their Friday night special.

Paizo and Pathfinder must be doing something right!

-Swiftbrook

And WotC had the Sagamore Ballroom which is much bigger than Paizo's space, so what's your point besides edition warring?

As for the OP question it's D&D all the way. I like post-Spellplague FR, Greyhawk, Athas (Dark Sun) and have a soft spot for Spelljammer, Al-Qadim and Birthright stuff. Golarion, Eberron, Mystara and Dragonlance are fine at what they do, just not my cup of tea.

 

[amethal]

I really like Golarion which, as people have touched upon, was intended to be a "kitchen sink" world.

It does fit together a lot better than people sometimes give it credit for. I wonder if having the nations in alphabetical order, rather than geographically, in the Campaign Guide gives the wrong impression.

For example, Galt, Geb and Irrisen follow on from one another in the book but have next to nothing in common (revolutionaries, necromancers and winter witches). However they are so far apart geographically that if you saw them on the map you wouldn't really expect them to be similar.

On the other hand, Belkzen, Lastwall and Ustalav are different in nature but have a shared history that makes sense, although you might not realise it because they are spread throughout the book. So you could dismiss them as the Orc place, the Paladin place and the Undead place without noticing that they are as they are largely because of the Whispering Tyrant (who is the guy on the cover of the book).

 

[Kaodi]

How much do you think this problem with novels can be staved off by saying that the novels are their own alternate or self-contained universes, [MENTION=20741]Steel_Wind[/MENTION]?

Eberron, of course, has novels that are explicitly not supposed to be setting canon, but major stuff happens in them. And some of that major stuff is better handled than in other (like how Keith has an explanation for the Mourning in one that cannot be verified as true or not for hundreds of years). Though even his books might not quite count as " extremely succesful " .

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

For example, Galt, Geb and Irrisen follow on from one another in the book but have next to nothing in common (revolutionaries, necromancers and winter witches). However they are so far apart geographically that if you saw them on the map you wouldn't really expect them to be similar.

On the other hand, Belkzen, Lastwall and Ustalav are different in nature but have a shared history that makes sense, although you might not realise it because they are spread throughout the book. So you could dismiss them as the Orc place, the Paladin place and the Undead place without noticing that they are as they are largely because of the Whispering Tyrant (who is the guy on the cover of the book).

Organizing by region probably would be a good idea for a variety of reasons.

 

[Cergorach]

How are you looking at it? As a player, as a DM, or both?

To be honest, I don't like 4E Forgotten Realms or Darksun, Eberron Isn't really my cup of tea in either iteration. The default 4E setting is a bit... Unexciting imho. I do like most of the 2E/3E D&D settings. Golarion... I like what they've done with the place.

But to be honest, settings aren't really all that edition bound unless you intent to run edition specific adventures. I would say pick a setting you like, pick a rules set you like and go forth and play what you like, how you like.

 

[Wik]

I prefer the D&D implied setting over Golarion. The reason is because Paizo designers have a love for lovecraft and icky horror movie stuff, which sometimes seems a bit over the top - the game has rules for alchemists that mutate jekyll/hyde style, witches that get bonuses for eating children, and barbarians that rage only when drunk.

D&D's core books, on the other hand, assume a more "PCs are heroes" stance that I personally prefer.

So, while I think Pathfinder is better than 3.5E (and definitely better than 4e, I've played enough 4e to know it's not for me), I do think the D&D take on the setting is "better". That being said, I don't really like either - every flavour of D&D these days is a bit too high magic/illogical/wahoo for me.

 

[jaerdaph]

Using Pathfinder rules in FR.....

FR or FR 100 years into the future? [I'm secretly hoping the retcon will have Pam Ewing waking up and realizing 4e FR was just a bad dream and Elminster's in the shower. Sort of a Dallas RPG/FR crossover...]