Quote from: kythri;1072489Looks pretty much the same:

https://www.waynereynolds.com/fantasy-art-gallery-2

There's a fair amount of stuff he's done for WotC (and a couple others) there.  Looks like he's been the cover artist for a lot of Eberron stuff.

God, I fucking HATE Reynolds...

I should say I hate his art, I have no idea what the man is like.

Quote from: sureshot;1072500My anecdotal evidence is that most who play and rune Pathfinder usually don't use 3.5. material.

Really? Because my anecdotal evidence is most people only use the Adventure Paths and Settings Books.

Quote from: sureshot;1072500Backwards compatibility is imo highly overrated. My anecdotal evidence is that most who play and rune Pathfinder usually don't use 3.5. material. I'm not saying no one converts from 3.5 to PF. Not enough imo for PF 2E to be backwards compatible. This time around they need more than " 3.5 thrives as a sales pitch. "

I disagree. As far as I've witnessed any RPG that proceeds with a non-backwards compatible new edition risks falling apart completely as their niche audience weighs every other RPG against the next edition. Meanwhile backwards compatible editions get to provide new exciting things while being low effort to get into.

Even D&D has destroyed itself with edition changes and it plays by different rules than other RPGs (by having a marketing budget).

Paizo lives or dies based on word of mouth from fans. As a former fan, I think they handled this about as poorly as possible.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1072526As far as I've witnessed any RPG that proceeds with a non-backwards compatible new edition risks falling apart completely as their niche audience weighs every other RPG against the next edition. Meanwhile backwards compatible editions get to provide new exciting things while being low effort to get into.

Even D&D has destroyed itself with edition changes and it plays by different rules than other RPGs (by having a marketing budget).

I would tend to agree with this.

Even minor changes can have a negative effect on public perception (e.g. Call of Cthulhu 7th edition - the attribute thing is not even a mechanical change, rather one of presentation, and it still led to some kerfuffle). D&D 3E changed a lot from 2E, but still provided a document that allowed players to convert 2E characters with a reasonable amount of effort, showing they were at least mindful of backwards compatibility. WEG Star Wars 2nd edition was a very minor update to 1st, and was generally very well received. Earthdawn basically went from 1st to 3rd with very minimal changes, but 4th edition apparently had more radical changes and basically killed the product (4th editions seem to have that power... ). GURPS was a masterclass in changing very little, as far as I can remember (not very familiar with 4th edition...).

If Paizo decides to "pull a D&D4E", they are likely going to be met with disaster.

Quote from: Daztur;1072502Think that backwards compatibility is important in terms of ease to learn. Something as crunchy as PF only became as popular as it did because people came in already knowing 3.5ed and then just had to learn a bit more to play PF. Having to learn a whole new crunchy system from scratch if PF2 deviates too much from the 3.5ed baseline is going to make a lot of people nope out.

Given how popular 5E is and not backwards compatible. I don't think it's that much of a requirement or needed as people think it is. It's mot that hard go convert between 3.5 and Pathfinder it is time consuming imo. Given a choice of less complexity and compability vs ease of play most will chose eady of play.

The success of 5E shows that. The same way Savage Rifts is doing better tham Rifts. I'm not againsg backwards compatibility. If I was a rpg designer I would need proof of constant sales of my rpg to be that.

So far what I have seen is less using and converting older material. More just using PF material. With unfortunate brainwashing by some of 3.5. Materiel being broken and unbalanced. The page where Paizo has their version of Vow of Poverty is fit only to be torn out of the book and used as toilet paper. 3.5. Was too good and maybe broken at least it was worth taking as an option for a character.

Quote from: sureshot;1072537Given how popular 5E is and not backwards compatible. I don't think it's that much of a requirement or needed as people think it is. It's mot that hard go convert between 3.5 and Pathfinder it is time consuming imo. Given a choice of less complexity and compability vs ease of play most will chose eady of play.

The success of 5E shows that. The same way Savage Rifts is doing better tham Rifts. I'm not againsg backwards compatibility. If I was a rpg designer I would need proof of constant sales of my rpg to be that.

So far what I have seen is less using and converting older material. More just using PF material. With unfortunate brainwashing by some of 3.5. Materiel being broken and unbalanced. The page where Paizo has their version of Vow of Poverty is fit only to be torn out of the book and used as toilet paper. 3.5. Was too good and maybe broken at least it was worth taking as an option for a character.

Point of order. 5e is very backwards compatible in that many here claim to run various AD&D or older modules with 5e and not needing to spend much effort converting content.

Savage Rifts is pretty great. It's also a Savage Worlds setting and can used to tie a bunch of them together. But really it's just a very solid product that appeals to Savage Worlds fans and Rifts fans.

3.5 Vow of Poverty was actually terrible and way less useful than full WBL. What a lot of 3.5 DMs forgot to do what actually give out enough loot (I did that), which lead to many tables where the VoP character was much much stronger and more badass. Paizo's VoP sucks for SJW reasons, they didn't want to portray poverty in a positive light because people suffer from it without gaining magical super powers.

Making a new edition backwards compatible versus making a new edition evolve into some nifty new features--are both second order goals.  Still important, but if you let one or the other dominate the main goal of making the new edition better than the old one, then there will be problems.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1072540Point of order. 5e is very backwards compatible in that many here claim to run various AD&D or older modules with 5e and not needing to spend much effort converting content.

Good to know as I have never tried to convert any PF material to 5E. Not that 3.5 to PF is hard to do just time consuming. Monsters and minor npcs are easy enough. Higher level mosnters and npcs are imo a pain in the ass. Mind you one good thing about converting older material is seeing how bad some of the Wotcnpcs aredesigned I began working on a Return to the temple of Elemental Evil conversion and they have a Ranger who they try to shoehorn into making the character a Ranged archer. Has little to no Archery feats. Is better at two weapons fighting yet cannot use that as they gave the npc who can be taken as a cohort with leadership a suit of magical chainmail. Making it so he can't use either Ranged or TWF very effectively.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1072540Savage Rifts is pretty great. It's also a Savage Worlds setting and can used to tie a bunch of them together. But really it's just a very solid product that appeals to Savage Worlds fans and Rifts fans.

I agree about the rules and it's too bad we will never see an updated PB set of rules as it's great to see an update. Yet I would like to see an update to the original rules as well.

Quote from: Rhedyn;10725403.5 Vow of Poverty was actually terrible and way less useful than full WBL. What a lot of 3.5 DMs forgot to do what actually give out enough loot (I did that), which lead to many tables where the VoP character was much much stronger and more badass. Paizo's VoP sucks for SJW reasons, they didn't want to portray poverty in a positive light because people suffer from it without gaining magical super powers.

I would still take the 3.5. version. While it's entirely possible that the Paizo version sucked because of SJW reasons. I think it's the devs not only refusing to think outside of the box. They jump back into the box then ask for someone to pour concrete on it. Anecdotally and from what I saw on their site when their version of VOP came out it was almost everyone who panned the Paizo version. They take great options and nerf them or offer great options and do the same. Thinking fluff will always be better than crunch. Take a look at Craft Ooze: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/item-creation-feats/craft-ooze-item-creation/ In terms of fluff looks like a great feat. In terms of Crunch it sucks imo. I can create oozes I can't control them and it requires a feat tax and gold and a tools to create something that could attack me if I used it in combat.

Quote from: kythri;1072489Looks pretty much the same: There's a fair amount of stuff he's done for WotC (and a couple others) there.  Looks like he's been the cover artist for a lot of Eberron stuff.

Wow, that is depressingly similar to the Paizo stuff. But this also makes me wonder as the range of years 2001 - 2011 seemingly overlaps with the start of Paizo, and Pathfinder shipped in 2008.

So I guess that means while Pathfinder was D&D 3.75, the artwork was really 4e.

Quote from: kythri;1072489Looks pretty much the same:

https://www.waynereynolds.com/fantasy-art-gallery-2

There's a fair amount of stuff he's done for WotC (and a couple others) there.  Looks like he's been the cover artist for a lot of Eberron stuff.

I think his Paizo stuff looks much better than his WoTC stuff. I guessed it was better art direction.

Quote from: sureshot;1072544I would still take the 3.5. version. While it's entirely possible that the Paizo version sucked because of SJW reasons. I think it's the devs not only refusing to think outside of the box. They jump back into the box then ask for someone to pour concrete on it. Anecdotally and from what I saw on their site when their version of VOP came out it was almost everyone who panned the Paizo version. They take great options and nerf them or offer great options and do the same. Thinking fluff will always be better than crunch. Take a look at Craft Ooze: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/item-creation-feats/craft-ooze-item-creation/ In terms of fluff looks like a great feat. In terms of Crunch it sucks imo. I can create oozes I can't control them and it requires a feat tax and gold and a tools to create something that could attack me if I used it in combat.

PF2e is basically that, they nerfed everything and think fluff is important in a rules set where fluff has no mechanical meaning because the rules are tight.

I think Craft Ooze is a bad example since you at least make an ooze, which is kind of cool, even if you have to control it via fluid dynamics.

*Throws dart a random mechanic*
This: https://www.d20pfsrd.com/alternative-rule-systems/occult-adventures/occult-rules/chakras/

Is overly complicated horseshit that provides almost no useful benefit while not even being fun either. The best ability is 5e advantage on every-roll. The fluff does not line up.

I like the fact that OPF, Original Pathfinder happened.  It put a stop to 4E, and moved WOTC toward 5E.  OPF also has a lot of cool widgets.  I own 11, 12, 13? OPF books myself.  I love to read over them and use stuff I find.  But do I play RAW OPF?  Shit no.  It's cool stuff though.

PF2E lost my interest, which was already on the fence, with the SJW crap in the 2E playtest CRB.

Quote from: sureshot;1072537Given how popular 5E is and not backwards compatible. I don't think it's that much of a requirement or needed as people think it is. It's mot that hard go convert between 3.5 and Pathfinder it is time consuming imo. Given a choice of less complexity and compability vs ease of play most will chose eady of play.

The success of 5E shows that. The same way Savage Rifts is doing better tham Rifts. I'm not againsg backwards compatibility. If I was a rpg designer I would need proof of constant sales of my rpg to be that.

So far what I have seen is less using and converting older material. More just using PF material. With unfortunate brainwashing by some of 3.5. Materiel being broken and unbalanced. The page where Paizo has their version of Vow of Poverty is fit only to be torn out of the book and used as toilet paper. 3.5. Was too good and maybe broken at least it was worth taking as an option for a character.

Backwards compatibility makes a game easier to learn and it is helpful psychologically to tell people "you can still use your old books!" even if most people don't.

Of course having backwards compatibility isn't so important if your game is easy to learn. Just with hard to learn games having them be "like what you already know but MORE" helps grease the wheels a lot.

Also even not completely compatibile editions can be similar enough to help people get the hang of quickly.

For example:
2ed to 3ed: even if things are really different under the hood the body and paint job look a lot like 2ed. A lot of spells are the same damn thing. Weapons do the same damage. HPs work the same way. Once you figure out about just how different thingd can work in practice at higher levels you've already got the hang of the system.

3.5ed to 4ed: I remember reading through the PH  and just not having a clue which widget was good or not. And I kept asking myself "Is it worth the effort to figure out?" Also the simplest things kept on tripping people up like "add half you level and an ability modifier to EVERYTHING" which isn't a hard thing but which confused people so often who weren't used to making attack rolls with spells.

3.5ed to Pathfinder: 3.5ed with more bells a whistles. Easy enough to learn if you know 3.5ed well. But I can't imagine what a nightmare Pathfinder with a stack of splats would be to a  RPG newbie.

Going into 5ed it plays enough like a cleaned ul 3.5ed that I got the hang of it easily even if it isn't compatibile. The DM keeps on deferring to me as the rules expert even though I've never even read the PHB, I just look up shit on wikis.

This also helps drive the success of OSR games. Don't change something unless the replacement is CLEARLY better as being the same makes the game easy to learn is a huge benefit in and of itseld. It also helps that you can add a huge amount of OSR original content in the form of new content, spells, monsters, items, etc. while barely touching the actuak rules. Same goes for AW hacks vs. randkm new hippiegames.

Quote from: Daztur;1072586Backwards compatibility makes a game easier to learn and it is helpful psychologically to tell people "you can still use your old books!" even if most people don't.

Not necessarily imo. It depends on how different the new edition is from the old. If it's similar it's easy if it's different it may hinder rather than help. Speaking for myself the only previous edition that I really looked at when I bought a new one was 1E to 2E D&D. After that I barely looked back. When I invest in a new edition of an rpg I don't bother looking at an old one as I usually commit fully to the new version. I know some gamers like myself who might comment on how a rule is different say as an example for armour class in 2E to 3E D&D with 3E rules on that being easier than Thaco. More often than not anecdotally for myself and those we game with an new edition of an rpg stands on it's own. Comparing an older edition with a new edition makes for a less objective reading and review of the rules.

Quote from: Daztur;1072586Also even not completely compatibile editions can be similar enough to help people get the hang of quickly.

Not necessarily. I barely looked at 1E or 2E when reading and learning 3E. If anything it would have made the process much worse as I would haven been comparing 3E more favorably to the older editions. I started with 1E and 2E and I enjoyed and to a certain extent do. All the later editions just highlight many of their flaws. No one will take humans if we do not impose level limits on Demi-Humans. The 1E Monk class abilities are all over the place and seem to have been developed by monkeys throwing darts at a board. Maybe I'm not too well versed in martial arts movies why woud Monks be able to speak with animals then plants at higher levels. Thaco is not hard to learn but man they could have explained it much better. As well by that point I was an experienced gamer who remembered many of the rules from previous editions of D&D so going back and spending more time which I did not have let alone want to give to learn 3E.

I get the point your trying to make yet as an rpg developer I want proof that making an rpg backwards compatible will guarantee me more sales. Not less and from what I see with my gaming buddies most of them don't. Mainly because it's extra time that takes away from developing the campaign and for the most part Paizo rpg stuff is a good substitute. I have read of some doing a PF conversion of Dragonlance it's few and far between.

As for the OSR Paizo and Wotc rpgs they will never play and im oshould not be a factor in development. Again unless I know for sure that many of them will buy my products I don't see the need to cater to them on maybe they might buy. Then again I would have made the OGL one where one pays a one time fee every year to use the license. So even if the competition does do a better job I'm guaranteed making some money. And why not why should someone make money of my rules for free. When I say that I'm met with gasps of horror and dismay.

Quote from: Rhedyn;10725403.5 Vow of Poverty was actually terrible and way less useful than full WBL. What a lot of 3.5 DMs forgot to do what actually give out enough loot (I did that), which lead to many tables where the VoP character was much much stronger and more badass. Paizo's VoP sucks for SJW reasons, they didn't want to portray poverty in a positive light because people suffer from it without gaining magical super powers.

   Documentation of the last? Because while I hold no brief for Paizo, I have trouble believing that even they lack the ability to see the fundamental moral differences between involuntary and voluntary poverty.