My piazo problmes Forked Thread: Another Cease and Desist Letter: 4E Powercards

[Dragon Snack]

When we put out the Beta, we intentionally pushed the envelop, making some changes that were a bit beyond what we thought was necessary to fix some of the issues with the system. In some cases, this was done to see what the tolerance was for change in the system.

The problem with that is that when you push the envelope too far, you lose people who may have been interested in what you will finally come out with. I liked what I saw with the Rogue, but there's so much other chaff I just couldn't stomach that I gave up on PF.

I hope that many of the "changes" will be tempered by the desire for backward compatibility.

I know that it can seem that "those who talk loudest get heard" might be the way it seems that things are going right now, but that is only because there is a lack of context between the Beta and the final for just about everyone but the fine folks who are within 30 feet of my desk. We have been carefully weighing all of the playtest feedback equally, regardless of how many times we hear an idea.

This is also very heartening to hear. I also gave up on giving feedback.

While I hope that I'll like what I'll see, the way you've gone about it has turned me away. I respect Paizo enough to check out the final product, but I can't shake this empty feeling that you've already passed me by...

 

[phloog]

We can't just reprint the SRD, because two key parts of the rules (ability score generation and how to hand out experience points and level up your character) aren't in the OGL or SRD.

That part of your post confused me...isn't this exactly what Mongoose did with the pocket guides? I don't have mine in front of me...is it missing levelling rules? For some reason I thought the 'no rules/process for levelling' was a GSL thing.

I don't have any problem with you doing your own thing, and frankly if you are getting rid of some of the more extreme changes and moving closer to fuller backwards compatibility then maybe at some point in the future I'll pick up your rule book. The APs were always very interesting, but somehow never really fit the flavor/style of my campaign, so any changes that are made to flavor/fluff that are solely to fit that campaign world/style have no value to me.

The bummer for me is that the first version I looked at was apparently filled with wild ideas, and it sounds like those were the ones that turned me off...how close to the anticipated final form is it now? Is it worth looking again, or should I just wait until it releases and flip through it at the gaming store?

 

[James Jacobs]

The bummer for me is that the first version I looked at was apparently filled with wild ideas, and it sounds like those were the ones that turned me off...how close to the anticipated final form is it now? Is it worth looking again, or should I just wait until it releases and flip through it at the gaming store?

It's probably best to wait until the game's out and then just check it out in the store, I suppose... although the Beta IS a free download, so it's nothing to check it out anyway. The final form of the game isn't something we're going to be showing off publicly until summer (Gen Con, to be precise) in any case.

In any event, if the PFRPG isn't for you, and you end up prefering 3.5... again; the final game's going to be pretty compatible. Probably more compatible than the 2nd Ed/3rd Ed changes, but perhaps a little less compatible than the 3.0/3.5 changes. I've seen a lot of feedback from folks who use the PFRPG Beta to make characters and run games using 3.5 adventures without having to do barely any adjustments, in fact.

As for Mongoose's SRD reprints, I haven't looked at them. My main source for the SRD rules has pretty much always been d20srd.org. A quick search there for rules on how to generate ability score and how to level up characters or hand out XP comes up with nothing. If the Mongoose compilation is an OGL product and not a d20 product, they can make up new rules for that stuff (like we have in PFRPG), but if it's a d20 product... that's off limits.

 

[James Jacobs]

The problem with that is that when you push the envelope too far, you lose people who may have been interested in what you will finally come out with. I liked what I saw with the Rogue, but there's so much other chaff I just couldn't stomach that I gave up on PF.

I hope that many of the "changes" will be tempered by the desire for backward compatibility.


This is also very heartening to hear. I also gave up on giving feedback.

While I hope that I'll like what I'll see, the way you've gone about it has turned me away. I respect Paizo enough to check out the final product, but I can't shake this empty feeling that you've already passed me by...

The PFRPG playtest was a LOT bigger than we ever anticipated it would be. We were expecting to get a few thousand folks if we were lucky, but what we got was, to this date, over 45,000 downloads of the rules and the corresponding flood of posts on the playtest forums. It's pretty exciting... but also pretty overwhelming. And there's certainly a lot of, shall we say, "passion" on some of those threads that can be pretty offputting. Which is unfortunate, but hey, this is the internet. Passion runs deep here.

Anyway, all we can ask, really, is that when the rules are out that you swing by the FLGS and check them out. The rules WILL be closer to 3.5 than the Beta was, and we'll also have that conversion booklet out too. And in the end, if the type of adventures and products we've been putting out for 3.5 are up your alley, you should be good to go, because those types of adventures and products is what we're building PFRPG to support.

 

[Minicol]

If Paizo wanted to keep 'core books in print', they could just print their own OGL Player's Handbook...but for all the good will they seem to get, it sure seems to me like the MAIN reason for Pathfinder is NOT to keep 3.5 style rules in print, but to make a product sufficiently different from 3.5 to allow Paizo to own/control it. Not in terms of violating OGL concepts, but still.

Hiya,

I believe they have already answered this several times.

You can only be marketed in any distribution channel if you have a core book available. That, and new players to the hobby will need one.

As for the backwards compatibility, I really have no issues with this. I mean I have converted campaigns from 1e to becmi, to 2e, to 3e .... And this is probably the easiest ever. I really don't get any of these complaints (no offence meant, see below). 2e to 3e, now that was tougher.

I mean, sure some stats are going to change, like maybe fighters will have one more feats ... woah, big deal ... but that's not enough to damage compatibility. it's still the same stat block. You have the six abilities, the BAB (renamed CMB), the saves, the feats.... the rest is fluff.

To me what matters is the undefined background behind the game, and there is IMO the backwards compatibility. My library of adventures is still usable verbatim ? Then it's all good.

Besides, they are offering me an excellent range of adventures and campaigns to choose from, and continue the adventuring.

Regards

 

[WayneLigon]

Pathfinder is probably the single closest and most compatable thing you're going to find to 3.5. There's no 'radical' change here; almost all of the changes are on the house-rule level. If you went to play 3.5 at someone else table, they'd probably have house rules with more difference than Pathfinder to 3.5 core. I just can't imagine people saying it's 'not backwards compatable', unlees by that you mean 'I have to lift a finger to convert a handfull of feats'.

 

[Nikosandros]

the final game's going to be pretty compatible. Probably more compatible than the 2nd Ed/3rd Ed changes

Well, that's not actually saying much... AD&D and 3rd edition are two very different games. The exterior trappings might look similar, but when you get down to it, compatibility between the two systems is very low.

 

[phloog]

Well, that's not actually saying much... AD&D and 3rd edition are two very different games. The exterior trappings might look similar, but when you get down to it, compatibility between the two systems is very low.

Well, to speak up for (but not speak for) Mr. Jacobs, it is hard to create an analogy in this situation, and still stay within the realm of RPGs. I won't detail all the things that I saw and didn't like in what I BELIEVE was actually the ALPHA (not even the beta) - - pretty much the day they announced you could see SOMETHING, I grabbed that something and took a look.

You also need to understand that I'm one of those folks who can't find much of anything to like in 4th edition, so I really WANT another product to remain viable - I just want it to be less different than what I saw first.

 

[catsclaw227]

I have a quick question for James:

With the Pathfinder RPG coming out and the new APs and adventures to follow, obviously you can't hav NPCs with classes or prestige classes that aren't OGL. But that's an awful lot, and the things that made your Dungeon APs great were the variety of NPC classes/prestige classes and the monsters from non SRD sources.

Will all the NPCs and monsters in Pathfinder RPG adventures be restricted to the same base classes you have in the Pathfinder RPG hardback?

And this leads to another question. When you start (eventually) making splat books with classes and races, won't these make the older 3.5 library obsolete as well? I assume you aren't stopping at the one book and thats it.

So backward compatibility is just a temporary goal to satiate the current players until you reproduce the new classes and prestige classes and feats and new mechanics that you will eventually produce. I mean, it just makes good business sense, but let's be honest about it. Backward compatibility is not the goal here, it's really just a nice turn of phrase for a stop-gap until you make it yourself.

I don't begrudge you this, it's a good idea for the business. And I don't question Paizo's business acumen, it's proven quite good so far.

I love the style of your fluff and I like Golarian. Man, I wish you would do a 4e line of adventures....

 

[cdrcjsn]

to this date, over 45,000 downloads of the rules and the corresponding flood of posts on the playtest forums.

I hope you guys are using marketing numbers other than this. If you pair the above numbers with the habits of my local players, about 10 of us downloaded the rules to check them out, but probably only 1 or 2 will be buying the final book (if that, those players likely to buy are already pretty heavily invested in 4e so will probably buy only for the sake of completeness or because they want to support Paizo).

A poll question in the paizo site asking how many people will actually be buying the book would probably be a more useful number. Or a download of a $1 off coupon or something which actually signals intent to buy rather than curiosity.

I think Paizo puts out quality product, and would hate for it to hit problems by putting out an overly large print run based on false impressions of interest.

Cedric