Re: Pathfinder conversion community project request
Posted: Wed Sep 21, 2011 9:01 pm
Then I wish everybody luck & I will go back to working on it on my own.
The forum for discussing the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons...and more
Um, why are you going already? Nobody has even responded yet, and already you are leaving on the assumption that you are going to get bored and people aren't going to go in the way you want them to. This is another reason why I can do it - I know how to work as a team, and that is a big part of leadership. That also means I have to try and convince you to stick around and work as part of a team as well. Of course, that is impossible if you aren't willing to at least try and see what others want to begin with.xorial wrote:Then I wish everybody luck & I will go back to working on it on my own.
Not to argue with a moderator or anything, but I can't actually say that it is all that tense yet. At least, it's not meant to be, and I apologise if anything I have done is giving anybody the impression that things are even beginning to head in that direction. People tend to get a little edgy when I am around because I often happen to be quite powerful and forceful, but this is not tense yet. Enthusiastic, maybe, but not tense. It just means that I'm probably excited about the ideas of this project and seeing what may come from it that I want to see it actually work.cab wrote:[moderator hat]
Guys? Seriously? Come on now. This is getting rather tense, isn't it?
This sounds like a worthwhile project, and as ever it is appropriate that there will be creative differences. But lets just all chill out for a while now, back away, and not talk of falling out with each other or walking away.
I'd appreciate it, in fact I would take it as a personal favour.
As a gamer and an avid reader of Spelljammer, I'd just like to chip in and say that I think pathfinder would be quite a nice fit for Spelljammer. While I personally think of Spelljammer as the game setting hat took all the concepts of 2nd ed and turned them up to eleven, I also think that some of the streamlining elements of pathfinder make it closer in feel to that game than 3rd ed is. So... Looking forward to seeing what might come of this.
There has been a considerable amount of chatter on the comments to that Facebook post. I'm going to copy and paste them here, to try to pull the conversation back into a single thread.Big Mac wrote:Having spoken to Dale on Facebook, this thread is a "call to arms". So I'll put on my moderator hat and move it to the main forum (and leave a shadow topic here). Then I'll take off my moderator hat and say: "Who is up for it?"
xorial at Facebook wrote:Just made a request for a community project for converting Spelljammer to Pathfinder.
Big Mac at Facebook wrote:Sounds good to me, but it's down to the Woman from Del Monte to say "yes". If Ashtagon says S.I.G. then I'll get the hamster to
Meanwhile, I would suggest that you start making [Pathfinder] threads in the normal SJ forum and get going now. Conversion threads can be moved over later on. (It would actually be nice to have five Pathfinder conversion threads to support your cause.)
Big Mac at Facebook wrote:The same goes for anyone wanting to convert any D&D setting to any set of RPG rules. Start doing it now. Don't think you need to wait to request a forum first.
Big Mac at Facebook wrote:@Dale: Hmm. You actually put that into the 3e conversion forum.
What is it you are after? Are you after getting some Pathfinder threads going there or are you after a new conversion forum?
Big Mac at Facebook wrote:I've posted over in The Piazza.
Big Mac at Facebook wrote:Perhaps you might want to PM me about how to "pimp" this concept on Facebook.
Davane at Facebook wrote:Why do they need to do that, David? Everybody knows the best way to pimp anything Spelljammer related is to tell you about it, and let you have your resulting joy-gasm all over the internet!
Big Mac at Facebook wrote:LMAO: Well, when I work out which of the two things Dale is trying to do, I'll do what I can to help get the ball rolling.
Davane at Facebook wrote:I think Dale is just handed you the lead of the "Pathfinder Spelljammer community project" David Congratulations on your promotion!
xorial at Facebook wrote:I didn't pay attention when I created the thread. That is why it ended up under 3e.
xorial at Facebook wrote:David Shepheard is already HHIC. (Head Hamster In Charge)
Big Mac at Facebook wrote:So what is the purpose of the thread, Dale?
Is it a call to arms for SJ fans (in which case the main SJ forum would be best) or a request to Ash (in which case the Kippin Griffon would be best)?
Big Mac at Facebook wrote:I'll set up a Pathfinder RPG forum (if Ash says yes) and I'll shuffle the threads, but I don't know the Pathfinder SRD and I really need to get my "hamster droppings" together and get my existing projects on track.
My original plan was to get 3e done and then learn Pathfinder RPG and make a second pass, so I'm just not ready now.
xorial at Facebook wrote:Mainly a call to arms. I see the Starlit Sea supplement as taking care of basic mechanics. At least it seems to be going that way. It after reading the Thread on the Rock of Bral using the city stat bloc from the GamemMastery Book that I thought that much of the groundwork for a conversion really involves stat conversion of NPCs and such.
Big Mac at Facebook wrote:Oooookay. So is your target audience 3e fans or SJ fans? (i.e. do you want the thread moved to the main SJ forum?)
xorial at Facebook wrote:To the SJ forum. I think mainly 3e fans would be interested, you never know.
Davane at Facebook wrote:Since Pathfinder RPG is basically 3.75, it's basically a case of looking at what is different and tweaking it, so you might as well put together the material for 3e, Pathfinder, and possibly 4th Edition all at the same time, since they basically cover the same system and same thematic content. You just really need to change the mechanics where they need to be changed, and for the core aspects, they are not really going to be all that different since they are all pretty much evolutions of each other. That makes it more of an organizational task more than anything else.
Big Mac at Facebook wrote:I would agree with that Christina were it not for me being the "stuck-in-the-past guy" that wants to find d20 ways to replicate the feel of classic SJ and Dale being the "head-in-the-clouds" guy that wants to toss out stuff like helms absorbing spells.
With Pathfinder being boosted d20 (all pluses and no minuses) I was rather hoping that Pathfinder could take all the "plus" rules and 3.5 could take all the purist rules, but the two sets of rules could be made into interchangeable chunks that people can swap.
That is slightly different from doing 3.5 and then revising it for Pathfinder.
I suppose that me and Dale could always go into the Thunderdome if we can't agree on a way to do code sharing.
RobJN at Facebook wrote:would buy tickets to that
Big Mac at Facebook wrote:@Dale: I've moved the thread. Have you contacted George Williams (Loki) yet? I know he is into Pathfinder.
xorial at Facebook wrote:I don't want to toss everything. It is just 2e & 3/3.5/3.75e are a different rules set. They work from slightly different premises. I just don't want to break modern rules just to keep it the same. If I wanted it the same, I would just stick to 2e Spelljammer.
That said, I don't want to eliminate spells draining. I want to modify what you get & make the helmsman more useful. From a roleplay stand point, it sucks to just sit there during combat & not contribute.
DungeonMasterLoki at Facebook wrote:No need for any of that. If it gets written for Pathfinder it wil e backwards compatible with 3.5. No need to duplicate labor. (Perhaps a sidebar here and there to denote differences for the 3.5 purists?)
DungeonMasterLoki at Facebook wrote:I've got my Pathfinder conversion 80 finished and playtested and we are pulling together the pdf even now. Don't have a lot of forum time due to scheduling so Dale Norman should get ahold of me so we can compare notes. I've no trouble with collaborating. (This will be an official Beyond The Moons supplement btw, been working on it for 2 years now.)
xorial at Facebook wrote:I had been concentrating too much on the mechanics. It kept getting frustrating because I kept seeing hints of vehicle rules for Pathfinder. I never wanted to make something that conflicted with official rules because I want them to blend pretty well. That is why I think I want to start now on converting the basics, like NPCs & creatures. To a lesser extent, i would like to convert some adventures, too. That could even be adapting standard PF adventures so that it can be used as a SJ campaign.
Big Mac wrote:@George: You could probably do things the other way too, with 3.5 conversions and Pathfinder sidebars. You pays your money and you takes your choice.
You kept this Pathfinder conversion secret. LOL
xorial at Facebook wrote:Yes he did, din't he?
Big Mac at Facebook wrote:@Dale: The strange thing about helms is that they do not actually drain spells. (The helm just stops you from casting them. If you try to cast the spell fizzles. If you don't try to cast, the link with the helm eventually fails and you can then cast safely.) All that is needed, to give people, the ability to have helmsmen that can cast spells, is to create a way to break the link between helmsman and helm.
I think that one argument made by the traditionalists (and it is valid to an extent) is that the loss of spells is a "cost" and that is part of the ethos of the setting.
I think the counter-argument made by the revisionists (and it is also valid to an extent) is that the loss of spells is a cost that makes players not enjoy playing a helmsman.
I do wonder if changes need to be universal changes. Perhaps 99.9 percent of helmsmen could continue to have their spells locked down by helms and the minority of helmsmen (which would be the PCs and select hero NPCs) could obtain magic or training that allows them to get off of a helm and have a chance to cast without a fizzle result.
xorial at Facebook wrote:We had this discussion before. It is a legitimate argument. I mainly propose doing away with the penalties for normal operation, non-combat. Let spells be spent to add a burst of speed while tactical, and other effects. This lets the helmsman participate actively.
DungeonMasterLoki at Facebook wrote:Dale Norman are you on Google + or Skype? I'd like to chat about what we are doing. I think we're working on similar lines. I've playteted my approach and it works really well, but would love to compare notes.
xorial at Facebook wrote:Yes I am on G+.
xorial at Facebook wrote:we are circled on G+ too, lol
Wow. There was a lot more of this than I thought. Continued in next post...DungeonMasterLoki at Facebook wrote:David Shepheard Not really. I've been putting chunks of it on the SJ list and my campaign wiki for awhile now. It started as my formalized campaign bible and has evolved into and official pdf project. An update to the Planescape campaign setting will follow shortly thereafter with luck. I'll be presenting Pathfinder compatible rules with full conversions of the ships to the new vehicle rules from Ultimate Combat.
DungeonMasterLoki at Facebook wrote:Up for a G+ hangout? I've got a few minutes.
xorial at Facebook wrote:sure
DungeonMasterLoki at Facebook wrote:I'll be there in a moment. Changing machines.
xorial at Facebook wrote:Okay
Big Mac at Facebook wrote:How did G+ go? I didn't see a huddle.
DungeonMasterLoki at Facebook wrote:Was a private hangout, wish we'd known I'd have invited you in. We're going to compare notes.
Big Mac at Facebook wrote:No problem. I probably would have spent 20 minutes asking how to get into the hangout, in any case. I hope things went well.
Big Mac at Facebook wrote:When you are ready, I think you will be able to find other people who want onboard.
Davane at Facebook wrote:So, what you need then David, Dale, and George is someone with actual experience at running a project who is able to mediate between your two conflicting viewpoints, has a very indepth knowledge of d20, completely unbiased about what Spelljammer actually is, and happens to know a great deal about games design, and product creation... I wonder if I happen to know anyone with that sort of experience... You know, I did recall someone who had over ten years of experience leading the project to convert the Legend of Zelda Roleplaying Game to d20, being the first known fan project to become a major success story from the Wizards of the Coast d20 think tanks... Do you think I should see if they are up to the task.
Just two points I do want to bring up though - on the difference between 3.5 and Pathfinder, you are right that the difference is largely that Pathfinder is all plusses. But this is simply a change of viewpoint, and a matter of shifting the scales. You don't actually need to change the rules, just the numbers. Once the rules are defined, it's a simple case of making sure the numbers are consistent throughout and maintaining the balance.In the Legend of Zelda, we changed things considerably when we rebalanced the size mechanics so that instead of having no modifiers for medium character and penalties for those smaller than medium, we had no modifiers for Fine and added bonuses as you went up. This is because we had playable Fine characters in the setting, and that set a new perspective. It was still the same system - the rules didn't change. It was just that we moved the scale and the numbers around for rebalancing.
As for the differences between 2e and d20, that is a different issues, but my personal opinion is that the core of Spelljammer is the setting. AD&D was a mess mechanically, and wasn't very consistent - d20 provided this consistency. When you look at the OSR retro clones, you can see they are the plagiarising atrocities that they are because they go right back to the inconsistency of the originals, left undefended by the dead authors of the game designers that created them. It is very hard to protect the ideas from these OSR ideas, but there are ways to take these ideas and make them work in the d20 system, creating a tighter stronger mechanic which is thematic of the original, yet still d20. These OSR knockoffs do not even attempt to do that - they proudly eschew key aspects of the d20 system to copy old ideas in the name of being "retro".
A key example is elves spotting secret doors - having elves spotting secret doors is a key concept of D&D and very thematic. Nobody disputes this. But the core d20 mechanic is perfect for spotting secret doors, and giving elves a bonus for spotting things is just as thematic as having them spot secret doors on a 1 or 2 on a d6. The d20 method is unified within the larger system, and integrates that ability with other aspects of the system, but the latter is just separating it for it's own sake now. This is the advantage of using the d20 system - it's easy to integrate things into the systems that already exist, and with a little thinking about how things work, you can very easily create universal variations to the system that remain thematic. So you can keep the idea of how things worked in AD&D 2e Spelljammer, and use that to create a very effective d20 system that will work for both 3.5 and Pathfinder, and even 4th Edition if desired.
<to be finished tommorow>xorial at Facebook wrote:Those are some real points that I get in "discussions" with David about, lol. It does suggest certain themes of the basic setting when you change the rules system. In some ways, converting SJ to Savage Worlds would be less problematic than changing to Pathfinder.
Apologies aside, let the moderators moderate. If they say something is tense, it is best just to put your feelings aside on the manner, otherwise you might find yourself having a little to very long vacation from the forums.Davane wrote:Not to argue with a moderator or anything, but I can't actually say that it is all that tense yet. At least, it's not meant to be, and I apologise if anything I have done is giving anybody the impression that things are even beginning to head in that direction. People tend to get a little edgy when I am around because I often happen to be quite powerful and forceful, but this is not tense yet. Enthusiastic, maybe, but not tense. It just means that I'm probably excited about the ideas of this project and seeing what may come from it that I want to see it actually work.