Pathfinder 1E Paizo - Scourge of Old Worlds?

[barsoomcore]

There *are* things that are *wrong* to do to a setting.

Nonsense. There may be things you don't like, but nothing anyone can do to a setting is wrong in any objective sense.

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*.

A. Come on. "The very essence" of Planescape?

B. Describe how ANY published artifact could EVER make the original Planescape setting "an impossibility". I mean, seriously.

C. Prove that, given A (which is impossible), and given B (which is also impossible), anything wrong has happened in any meaningful way except insofar as you (and possibly others) don't like it.

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

Because the old setting carries brand recognition and will lead to higher and easier profits than taking a risk on an unproven brand?

 

[Alzrius]

A. Come on. "The very essence" of Planescape?

B. Describe how ANY published artifact could EVER make the original Planescape setting "an impossibility". I mean, seriously.

They could tear down the D&D cosmology as it now stands and make something completely different as the new D&D cosmology...hmm, which is what Matt Sernett suggested...

 

[BradfordFerguson]

Conspiracy Theorist is back

Maybe WotC wants Paizo to deflect attention away from all the d20 Planes books out and coming out and get y'all stoked for WotC's Planar Handbook.

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

 

[Staffan]

Okay, are there still questions on my point? It's nice that Staffan, for example, has an interpretation of "direct port", but there's nothing to make any other given person KNOW that this interpretation is the one Staffan means, without this little addendum.

In my defense, I think it's the most apparent meaning of port. When someone talks about porting something to a different computer type, they generally mean "fix it so it works on that computer type." They don't mean "rewrite everything to use all the features of that computer type." A similar analogue can be made for RPG settings: when you port a setting to a new set of rules, the important thing is to keep the things that made that setting interesting and unique, not to utilize all the new features of the rules system.

 

[nikolai]

So I do think that it is possible to have some reasonable expectations of faithfulness to the vision of a setting without becoming a frothing fanboy over the minor or necessary adaptations. Just like it is possible when retelling a setting to in actuality deviate from the spirit of the setting...

There's one think I'd like to add to this talk of "doing worlds right". The writers guidelines force authors to include everything. They don't have the option of not including sorcerers or dwarves or whatever. This puts a serious limitation of keeping as close as possible to the feel of previous versions of a campaign setting.

Campaign Components

“Campaign Components” gives the essential rules and flavor elements of a campaign idea so that DMs can incorporate some or all of it into any game. It’s also complete enough that a DM can create a world using the article as the basis for that creation...

PC Classes: This section explains how the roles of all the various core classes might function when using the campaign component. Address each class in it own subsection and provide one or two classic character types of the campaign option that suit the class. Focus on creating options—do not limit them. If having monks seems odd in your King Arthur Campaign Components, it’s your job to make the readers think monks are a perfect fit.

PC Races: This section explains how the roles of the all various core classes might function when using the campaign template. Address each race in it own subsection. Like with classes, your job is to make the races work in your Campaign Components.

http://www.paizopublishing.com/writersguidelines/dragon.html

 

[barsoomcore]

There's no need to defend anything. But still, comments like, "the important thing is to keep the things that made that setting interesting and unique" show again and again that this process is fraught with subjective opinions that make it nearly impossible for any one person's vision to align with another's.

Making declarations of this nature is useless. Making specific suggestions for what should be included or excluded in any given conversion is helpful. If you haven't got specific suggestions or criticisms, you aren't contributing much of value.

Now, it would seem that, given the Paizo guidelines quoted above, that maybe nothing anybody says is going to be of much value.

Except me, of course. I'm full of value. Valuicious.

 

[Cerubus Dark]

Why don't Mordenkainen and Elminster keep in touch anymore?

Lover's spat, Ol Mordy wanted to settle down and write out little childrens spellbooks and Elmer as we call him decided to chase after some dragon's tale.

 

[Cerubus Dark]

A. Come on. "The very essence" of Planescape?

B. Describe how ANY published artifact could EVER make the original Planescape setting "an impossibility". I mean, seriously.

C. Prove that, given A (which is impossible), and given B (which is also impossible), anything wrong has happened in any meaningful way except insofar as you (and possibly others) don't like it.

To answer your questions
A. The Very Essence of Planescape was Sigil, The Lady of Pain, and the Factions it contianed.

B. Impossible to prove or deny the fact that any new artifact created in the 3.x edition could damage the nature of Planescape. Sigil and Planescape are and forever the realm of the impossible becoming the very possible.

C. Moo.

 

[barsoomcore]

Objection withdrawn. Well put.

Muu.

 

[La Bete]

flogging dead horse...

No, they'd buy 3E material that respects some measure of continuity.

If the 3E material has chosen not to respect continuity then, sure, new fans won't notice the difference.

Also, that wasn't my quote about fans "owning" the campaign setting. It was someone else's but I found it interesting.

If i falsely attributed the quote to you, my apologies - however the "do it right or dont do it at all" viewpoint, seems closely tied to the fan ownership theory. Which I have some sympathy for.

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.