Pathfinder 1E Paizo - Scourge of Old Worlds?

[d4]

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.

but that has not been WOTC's method for updating any of their campaign worlds to 3e to date. sorcerers didn't exist in 2e Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms either, but the 3e versions of both settings have them. along with numerous other 3e-isms (like barbarians, monks, cleric domain spells, monsters with class levels, ad infinitum). it doesn't seem reasonable to me to expect them to suddenly change their methods and only do "direct ports" from now on with the other settings. i really like the changes that were made from 2e to 3e, and if all the settings were simply "directly ported" over, we'd end up losing the vast majority of the really innovative and IMO best changes to the D&D rules.

(as an aside, i liked the Dark Sun conversion. one of my main gripes about 2e Dark Sun was that it didn't allow paladins. seemed like a silly restriction to me. i'm glad they didn't fall into the trap of disallowing a perfectly viable character type in their update of the setting.)

in the long run, however, i am really starting to think that this kind of conversion of a setting from one system to another shouldn't be performed by the company itself. it's just too hard to please everyone, because everyone has different ideas about these settings. i think White Wolf with their new World of Darkness is doing it the right way -- a new rules system, and a completely new setting; a complete break with the past. no worries about what gets converted, what gets left behind, what gets added in the new system. if one wants to do a conversion, one should do it oneself -- that's the only way to make sure it's "done right."

 

[Grodd JoJoJo]

"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." - BarsoomCore

I like what's being said here.

It seems to me that those who are answering this in the negative are missing one of the primary aspects of D&D - you can do it the way YOU want to. Don't like the new cosmology? Don't use it. My DM has a cosmology based around different levels of existence - a character pulled from one plane may either be more or less powerful than his counterpart in another plane. I don't see how that's a bad thing, as it is part of the logic of the setting. I've got different cosmologies in my own worlds. I don't see how I should have to stick to an "official" cosmology. Is there an "official" cosmology? D&D is not designed for the purpose of shoehorning us all into a rigid framework for every small detail. That's its strength, not its weakness. The best aspect of WoTC's "Unearthed Arcana" is the fact that it makes this clear and visible.

That said, if you like a setting, then use its appropriate assumptions when adapting it for your use.

 

[3catcircus]

but that has not been WOTC's method for updating any of their campaign worlds to 3e to date. sorcerers didn't exist in 2e Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms either, but the 3e versions of both settings have them. along with numerous other 3e-isms (like barbarians, monks, cleric domain spells, monsters with class levels, ad infinitum).

Actually, we don't really *know* if they were sorcerers or not - given the ruleset, the intent still may have been a sorcerer (for instance, all of the "Southern Magician" wizards from Mulhorands, Unther and Chessenta might have been intended as sorcerers...)

it doesn't seem reasonable to me to expect them to suddenly change their methods and only do "direct ports" from now on with the other settings. i really like the changes that were made from 2e to 3e, and if all the settings were simply "directly ported" over, we'd end up losing the vast majority of the really innovative and IMO best changes to the D&D rules.

Well - in keeping with the idea that, other than FR and the *initial* conversion of Greyhawk, WoTC *didn't* do the conversions of old worlds, RPGA members did most of it for Greyhawk and Paizo did (at least partially) in Dragon, for example - I don't see this as a problem. As to "suddenly changing," I don't see it this way at all. They *did* direct port FR and Greyhawk, looked at new 3e stuff, and if it made sense, they modified the 3e version of the world. Once again - you completely missed my point. If the 2e version *works* as-is, after 3e conversion, then don't go adding new stuff or doing "change for change's sake."

(as an aside, i liked the Dark Sun conversion. one of my main gripes about 2e Dark Sun was that it didn't allow paladins. seemed like a silly restriction to me. i'm glad they didn't fall into the trap of disallowing a perfectly viable character type in their update of the setting.)

in the long run, however, i am really starting to think that this kind of conversion of a setting from one system to another shouldn't be performed by the company itself. it's just too hard to please everyone, because everyone has different ideas about these settings. i think White Wolf with their new World of Darkness is doing it the right way -- a new rules system, and a completely new setting; a complete break with the past. no worries about what gets converted, what gets left behind, what gets added in the new system. if one wants to do a conversion, one should do it oneself -- that's the only way to make sure it's "done right."

Well - I think that many of the 3rd party conversions are excellent - Ravenloft and Dragonlance turned out pretty good. The Al-Qadim 3rd party stuff is pretty darn good. I expect Planescape will go well, as will Mystara. The only question is for the guys who were doing the Maztica update - the website hasn't been updated in a long time, so I suspect that the project is either dead or severly behind schedule.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't see how anything was "shoe horned" into the Great Wheel. Each god has a domain and an alignment; their domain was found on the plane that most suited their alignment. I wouldn't say FR's cosmology was any more "shoe horned" in than that of Greek, Egyptian or Norse mythology (in other words, you don't need to "shoe horn" in anything that fits just fine into an infinite cosmology designed specifically to fit everything into).

Obviously, I'm going to have to file this next to his meaningless rant about Fantasy Terminology vs Game Terminology (i.e., under "S" for Statements Made by Someone Trying to Look Informed and Innovative).

Again, I am showing my age. For those of you who are much, much younger than me, Ed Greenwood wrote an article in which he described the process of creating his mythos, well before there was an official FR setting. It appeared in Dragon magazine, and included gods which (for copyright/ownership reasons...Aslan, anyone?) never made it into the official material. This was back in good old 1e AD&D, before the (original) Unearthed Arcana, but after the Deities & Demigods.

Guess what? Ed linked each of his gods to a plane in what would later come to be known as the "Great Wheel Cosmology."

Later on, in 2e, a lot of additional material turned up, particularly with the advent of Spelljammer. Overall, I like what they've done to the FR cosmology (but mostly because I homebrew, and there are things I can steal). But I don't accept that "shoehorned" argument, either.

RC

P.S.: I'm 37; I'm not old.

 

[tetsujin28]

In my opinion, Dragon and/or Dungeon shouldn't revamp any old settings.

Um...you're wrong. Next question?

 

[Bendris Noulg]

Again, I am showing my age. For those of you who are much, much younger than me, Ed Greenwood wrote an article in which he described the process of creating his mythos, well before there was an official FR setting. It appeared in Dragon magazine, and included gods which (for copyright/ownership reasons...Aslan, anyone?) never made it into the official material. This was back in good old 1e AD&D, before the (original) Unearthed Arcana, but after the Deities & Demigods.

Guess what? Ed linked each of his gods to a plane in what would later come to be known as the "Great Wheel Cosmology."

Later on, in 2e, a lot of additional material turned up, particularly with the advent of Spelljammer. Overall, I like what they've done to the FR cosmology (but mostly because I homebrew, and there are things I can steal). But I don't accept that "shoehorned" argument, either.

RC

P.S.: I'm 37; I'm not old.

35 next month.

At any rate, I still don't see any "shoe-horning" going on. Each deity easily fit within the Outer Planes (at the time you reference, they were most often shown as a rectangle rather than a "wheel"); shoe-horning would require some degree of comprimise, alteration, or purposeful-olversight to occomplish.

I.E., I see the Dark Sun update as having more shoe-horning within it than the FR cosmology ever did.

 

[JDJarvis]

How did my halfling's flabby gut turn into a trim waist?

How did his feet suddenly become hairless? (in a poof of smoke?)

How did his pipe o' tabacco go missing?

It all happened when someone decided D&D halflings should all be Kender with the serial numbers filed off instead of Hobbits with the serial numbers filed off.

 

[Raven Crowking]

35 next month.

At any rate, I still don't see any "shoe-horning" going on. Each deity easily fit within the Outer Planes (at the time you reference, they were most often shown as a rectangle rather than a "wheel"); shoe-horning would require some degree of comprimise, alteration, or purposeful-olversight to occomplish.

I.E., I see the Dark Sun update as having more shoe-horning within it than the FR cosmology ever did.

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that the FR gods were shoehorned into the "Great Wheel Cosmology." In fact, I meant exactly the opposite. They were designed with the then-current AD&D cosmology, which became the Great Wheel when they redrew the diagram.

RC

 

[Alzrius]

Guess what? Ed linked each of his gods to a plane in what would later come to be known as the "Great Wheel Cosmology."

I remember this too. I distinctly recall reading an article where he said (something to the effect of): "In my home campaign, there's a god named Bane who lives on Acheron."

 

[dead]

I know that, hence my post. That's even easier to change, especially if you have all the old material. Changing from 2e to 3e changes the rules, the "soft" aspects of the setting can be pulled from anywhere.

Sure, in one's own private campaign they can do anything they want. It doesn't matter if the *official* version is now vastly different.

Fans of a setting, however, expect the setting to be treated with some measure of dignity. Why? Because they have invested in it for so long (indeed, they are one reason the setting is alive).

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.