Pathfinder 1E Paizo - Scourge of Old Worlds?

[dead]

However I would disagree with your point as to the person should buy 3e material that respects some measure of continuity. I am more of the belief that someone should buy 3e material that they enjoy.

Game worlds (even while still being published) change. Revised Dark Sun anyone? Due to different authors, managers etc, continuity errors occur. This is life.

Personally, I found the Dark Sun conversion served my puposes - it was true enough to DS, and provided an interesting source material for a new campaign if i did not possess any dark sun 2e materials.

yes, even with the sorcerers/paladins/no breakage rules, etc.

I haven't looked at the 3E Darksun but I like the idea of including paladins and sorcerers. This makes the most of the core 3E rules.

The changes I'm talking about are less subtle than that, however. I mean, you can easily say: "Oh, a new breed of holy warrior is sprouting up, and a new class of arcane caster is forming secret cabals in cities across Athas".
However, it's not as easy to explain away the entire Outer Planes being torn out and replaced by another, for example. Either you keep your old material and use it or you come up with some contrived solution to explain the change.
If a game group does not want to isolate itself from the wider gaming audience of this campaign setting who play the new, *official* version, then they will have to do the latter.

 

[La Bete]

True - others however have a much different threshhold as to what change they will accept. I have, for example seen much wailing and gnashing of teeth re: the paladin/sorc issue.


As far as the changes go (and the PS changes you refer to are substantial), one would normally hope that the author of a given conversion provides a convincing scenario for the change - or at least the germ of an idea for GMs to build from.

 

[Arnwyn]

I'm with the original poster (Alzrius). His post pretty much described bang-on what was going through my head after reading the editorial (and the thread title got an immediate laugh from me. Good stuff!).

Needless to say, it is quite clear to me that the philosophies of myself and Paizo (or their editor-in-chief at the very least) are just not in any way compatible. Certainly another reason why I'm letting my subscription to Dragon lapse when it runs out. The value of that magazine just isn't there for me. (I'll never let go of Dungeon, though.)

(P.S. I can't believe anyone couldn't figure out what "direct port" means. I, for one, knew exactly what Staffan meant.)

 

[barsoomcore]

I can't believe anyone couldn't figure out what "direct port" means. I, for one, knew exactly what Staffan meant

No, you agreed with Staffan's explanation of what Staffan meant. You didn't know what Staffan meant until Staffan explained what Staffan meant. It just so happens that once the explanation was posted, it happened to accord with your understanding of the term. The fact is that another person could use a different definition, and not be violating some commonly-held point of view on terminology. There's no reason, for example, why "direct port" wouldn't mean, "add features of new ruleset into old setting." As opposed to the opposite.

I mean, when Microsoft ports Office to the Macintosh, they make sure it uses Mac OS features that aren't available on Windows.

I'm just campaigning for clarity, is all. I'm not saying that any definition of "direct port" is better than any other -- I'm just saying that it's a term subject to misunderstanding -- especially when being applied to such a large-scale operation as adapting a setting for a new ruleset. There's a lot of decisions required in such a process that the instruction "Do a direct port" doesn't provide much guidance on.

 

[Alzrius]

Barsoom, while I agree that one should eschew obfuscation in their terminology, it seems like you're approaching the point where nothing can be inferred or understood...that's an unhelpful extreme also. Some things can simply be understood to have a common definition.

 

[Desdichado]

If you have never supported a setting for many years then you will not understand. You will think it is just a bunch of campaign-setting elitists who are petulant that *everybody else* isn't playing how they play: the old-school hardcore way! This is not the case, however.

Isn't it?

Then, I'm having trouble reconciling the two sentiments 1) You can never understand unless you've supported a setting for many years and 2) We're not a bunch of petulant campaign-setting elitists.

Personally, I want to see new ideas. If I want the "soft" elements of a campaign setting, I don't need to have that updated. It's already available right there in the old 2e material. I want to see something new, otherwise it's wasting my time.

 

[Desdichado]

No, of course not, what's Paizo going to do next, start releasing a WOTC catalogue in the Dragon magazine?

One can only wish. Two or three articles a month, spread over a year? It could be done, and it'd make the magazine much more interesting.

 

[Arnwyn]

No, you agreed with Staffan's explanation of what Staffan meant. You didn't know what Staffan meant until Staffan explained what Staffan meant. It just so happens that once the explanation was posted, it happened to accord with your understanding of the term.

Uh-huh. And when enough people agree, then it's a common meaning. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think some phrases have a common meaning that's understandable to others. Alzrius says it well, above.

I'm just campaigning for clarity, is all.

Or pedantry, maybe.

One can only wish. Two or three articles a month, spread over a year? It could be done, and it'd make the magazine much more interesting.

I missed if this was a joke or not. Joshua Dyal - Dragon is releasing a WotC catalogue in the magazine. It's to be done quarterly.

 

[Cerubus Dark]

Sorry I seem to be missing the point of the argument over Planescape. Are people mad that they are redoing it under the guildlines they are or are they upset a setting is being "redone" by a diffrent standard. Paizo is not forcing anyone to play the new setting the way they write it. I don't remeber reading anything about Gaming-Nazi Deathsquads going door to door if you don't play it "as is"

If you don't like the way they convert it over, do one yourself. I mean heck all you need for Planescape is the City of Sigil, The Lady of Pain (she is a freaking dem-goddess you can make up stats for her), and some factions that are at war with each other.

That brings up a good question though.
How can I join the Gaming-Nazi Deathsquads, and how much do they pay?

 

[wingsandsword]

For the record, Oerth and Aber-Toril are still officially linked.

The Players Guide to Faerun clearly states that you can cross from one cosmology to another through the Deep Shadow (Shadow Plane), and that you can still make Portals that directly link the two worlds.

Not to mention that Forgotten Realms and Greyhawk have been directly linked in plot. Not a major link, but a significant one.

In the Time of Troubles in FR, when Waukeen shed her mantle of divinity and fled Abeir-Toril, no deity in the Realms would help her for fear of Ao's retribution. However, Celestian from Greyhawk spirited her away once she arrived on the Astral plane and started to smuggle her away.

It's a minor plot point, but unless they are retconning a notable part of the ToT, they not only exist in the same cosmology, the worlds interact on rare occasion, their gods even go to each other for help in emergencies.

As far as I'm concerned, the Great Wheel is the true FR cosmology, Faiths and Avatars/Powers & Pantheons are still the best guides to the powers of the Realms (game mechanics aside), and this messed up planar map in the FRCS and Player's Guide is just the misguided writings of some prime berk (I'm also a Planescape fan, my favorite FR game was a Planescape crossover).