Pathfinder 1E Paizo - Scourge of Old Worlds?

[barsoomcore]

The thing about sorcerers, specifically, is wrong.

I never said it wasn't wrong. I said it might be considered appropriate for a "direct port" to 3E -- if for example you consider the sorcerer class critical to all things 3E, you would therefore consider a "direct port" of any setting to 3E as needing to contain sorcerers.

I'm not arguing for or against any specific changes. I'm saying that the only way to usefully talk about which changes are good or bad is to be specific in both the changes under discussion and the reasons for their goodness or badness. Saying things like, "Do a direct port" isn't going to help because people will disagree as to what a direct port actually consists of.

 

[Wrath of the Swarm]

What if WotC wanted to publish Barsoom as a setting, but insisted that it include advanced technology a la d20 Modern or Spycraft?

Are you really suggesting, Barsoomcore, that the matter of whether such material was thematically compatible with the essence of your setting is subjective?

 

[Prince of Happiness]

Well...

For what it's worth, I enjoy their 3.5 updates for Kara Tur.

The whole "planes" thing doesn't bother me that much, as I've never paid attention too much to them.

However, of course the Forgotten Realms pantheon should be shoehorned into the "Great Wheel." Afterall, Mielikki's a Finnish deity (probably has a copy of Eberron before us too ), then there's the Egyptian pantheon in Mulhorand, Tyche, Bhaal, etc, etc, etc. Where at any point does the mix of deities in the grab bag of deities of FR suggest that it wouldn't fit into the greater D&D cosmology?

 

[barsoomcore]

What if WotC wanted to publish Barsoom as a setting, but insisted that it include advanced technology a la d20 Modern or Spycraft?

Hell, as long as I got a cut, they could do what they liked!

Are you really suggesting, Barsoomcore, that the matter of whether such material was thematically compatible with the essence of your setting is subjective?

I'd be interested to hear you defend how it might be otherwise. The word "thematically" is kind of the giveaway, here. As is "essence".

But my point, once more, is not that any particular change is or isn't compatible or good or whatever. It's that saying things like "They should do it right," is just shorthand for, "They should do it the way I think is correct." And the latter is a superior way to say that because it leads directly to the discussion of why one way is better than another, as opposed to arguing over what "right" means.

This has gotten blown rather out of proportion. Psion commented that as long as a conversion "was done right", he wouldn't complain. I pointed out that "done right" really meant "done the way you want it done." I maintain that I'm correct in that. The use of subjective formulations makes discussion and debate more difficult. If people discuss, say, the conversion of Dark Sun by saying "There shouldn't be sorcerers because of x y and z reasons," then they're accomplishing something more or less useful. If they say, "The conversion of Dark Sun must remain thematically compatible with the essence of the setting," well, they're contributing exactly NOTHING to the conversation. That sentence is meaningless, because you're never going to get two people to agree on what "thematically compatible" and "essence of the setting" mean. And Strunk and White is very clear on the use of needless words. Omit them.

 

[Alzrius]

For what it's worth, I enjoy their 3.5 updates for Kara Tur.

To be fair, that wasn't really an update. The Kara-Tur article was presenting the martial arts styles of Kara-Tur, along with a basic primer to the regions of that part of the campaign world...nothing was really updated.

That said, I enjoyed that article a lot myself. To me, the "old worlds" issue of Dragon was incredible (except for a few articles), and I'd like them to do such an issue once a year. As I said above, I've been very receptive to the articles that just deal with a small bit of a campaign world. It's when they try and relaunch a campaign setting as a whole that things seem to fall apart.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

To be fair, that wasn't really an update. The Kara-Tur article was presenting the martial arts styles of Kara-Tur, along with a basic primer to the regions of that part of the campaign world...nothing was really updated.

That said, I enjoyed that article a lot myself. To me, the "old worlds" issue of Dragon was incredible (except for a few articles), and I'd like them to do such an issue once a year. As I said above, I've been very receptive to the articles that just deal with a small bit of a campaign world. It's when they try and relaunch a campaign setting as a whole that things seem to fall apart.

Well, I really didn't need much of an update anyways. The Kara Tur boxed set is extremely, extremely rules light (which happens to make it 3.x compatible very easily). It just saved me the work of coming up with regional/ancestor feats and assigning them to the various countries, and designing some martial arts, so that was nice.

A canonical update wasn't really necessary for me either, as the last product for it was published, what, 1990? '91?

Saves me time to rip...er, find inspiration in ancient Chinese, Japanese, and Korean folklore and literature.

The jury's still out as to whether or not I agree with you for a wholesale campaign setting "relaunch," as the only one I'm familiar with is for Dark Sun, and well...I haven't played Dark Sun since the 8th grade. If I knew more, I'd probably get agitated, probably not. If anything I'd be irriatated that a few issues were taken up by a focus on a campaign setting I don't campaign in. But that doesn't bother me either. :\

 

[Banshee16]

Be careful of terms like "direct port" -- that's a pretty ambiguous notion and what looks direct to one person may not look so to another. Someone could argue that including sorcerers in Dark Sun was indeed a "direct port". You might think they're wrong, but we're back to "It would be nice if they did it my way," again.

And keep in mind that "artistic" issues aren't the only (or indeed the most important) issues around product design. Somebody has to buy these products if anyone's going to bother making and publishing them. If a direct port appeals only to people who already own the 2E material (not saying it does, but IF it does), then is it even worth it to do the conversion? Maybe Dark Sun was a crappy seller first time around and the honchos said, "Let's include paladins and see how she runs."

I'm not saying that any of these examples are true, just offering a principle by which people are probably making decisions that may make what you want unviable. Pointing out that it's not a priori true that a conversion that conforms to your ideas is the better one.

I disagree entirely.

Making a direct port doesn't have to be that hard, though exactly how a particular rule is implemented might be trickier to nail down. From that perspective, yes, there may be two different answers for how preservers differ from defilers in 3E....

But sorcerers absolutely did not exist in 2nd Ed. Dark Sun. Nor did paladins. Or spellcasting bards. It just didn't work like that. Those are firmly established elements of the campaign setting.

Banshee

 

[Staffan]

I never said it wasn't wrong. I said it might be considered appropriate for a "direct port" to 3E -- if for example you consider the sorcerer class critical to all things 3E, you would therefore consider a "direct port" of any setting to 3E as needing to contain sorcerers.

Ah. I interpreted "direct port" to mean "put the setting into 3e" rather than "put 3e into the setting." The first approach would say "OK, the setting has X, Y and Z. How would those work in 3e?" wheras the second is "OK, 3e has X, Y and Z. How would those work in the setting?"

For what it's worth, if you want to be true to the setting you should follow the first approach. Doesn't hurt to go through new elements in 3e and see if they fit the setting, and if so find a niche for them, but one should not squeeze in all 3e elements just because.

 

[Tsyr]

barsoomcore -

While I normally find your posts refreshingly logical, in this one instance I can't help but feel that even as a devil's advocate position your really stretching.

There *are* things that are *wrong* to do to a setting. It's not all relative.

If you change something in such a way that you have directly gone against the very essense of the original work, or in such a way that the original work is now an impossibility, you have done something *wrong*.

You may have created a fine *new* setting. But what you have not done is kept the old setting.

So why not just make a new setting, rather than butchering a beloved old setting?

It would be like 'updating' butter pecan icecream, but replacing the nuts with frozen blueberries. You might have created a great new icecream, but you have destroyed an old one.

Bah. Sorry for the food analogy. I'm hungry.

 

[3catcircus]

Ah. I interpreted "direct port" to mean "put the setting into 3e" rather than "put 3e into the setting." The first approach would say "OK, the setting has X, Y and Z. How would those work in 3e?" wheras the second is "OK, 3e has X, Y and Z. How would those work in the setting?"

For what it's worth, if you want to be true to the setting you should follow the first approach. Doesn't hurt to go through new elements in 3e and see if they fit the setting, and if so find a niche for them, but one should not squeeze in all 3e elements just because.

Well - since I started the whole "direct port" comment, I'll clarify it. What I meant by it was to take the existing mechanics of a given setting and convert it to 3.x - nothing more, nothing less. So - for Dark Sun, even though 3.x has Sorcerers and Paladins, they don't exist in that setting. Just like good clerics don't exist in a Midnight setting, and Wizards have to take "The Test" to get past 3rd level in Dragonlance.

The most important aspects of a "direct port" would be to read the front matter of the setting, which details how the existing AD&D classes fit into the setting as well as new classes for the setting. Almost every campaign setting did this. For example, download the Maztica setting from WoTC (its a free PDF) and look at the text starting on page 44 - the section titled "Maztican Characters." Much of the work is already done, as can be seen. Heck, even 3.x FR regions are already spelled out in the drawing on page 46 of this boxed set.

My point is that, in almost every case of an old 1st/2nd edition campaign setting the *hard* work has already been done and the only thing needed is to do the conversion to 3.x . The Maztica one is a perfect example - it *already* gives all of the +/- modifiers to the standard D&D races as they exist in Maztica along with the reasoning for it. They already detail what classes and kits (i.e. Prestige Classes in 3.x) are available... New spells and magic items are also listed - once again - only thing they need is to be converted.

Hence - my use of the term "direct port" since most of the stuff doesn't have to be created from scratch. To put it in software terms - all they need is some glue code...