Quick question: I’m probably going to be releasing an adventure module in the near future. I’m trying to figure out if I should stat it for 3.5 or if I should make the jump to Pathfinder.
You can select both answers on this poll. Basically, if you would buy the module if it was for a particular system you should select that option.
Pathfinder or 3.5?
- Pathfinder (70%, 141 Votes)
- 3.5 (25%, 51 Votes)
- I would never buy an adventure module from you (4%, 9 Votes)
Total Voters: 193
Loading ...
I wouldn’t buy an adventure module from you, because I write my own. What I would buy from you, would be a book or a pamphlet, if you wrote one up about the Event based/Nodal adventure design.
Thanks!
If you’re most comfortable with 3.5 and have yet to play with PFRPG much then I would suggest you go beyond the conversion guide:
http://paizo.com/products/btpy89m6?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Conversion-Guide
And take a look at this thread from the Paizo forums where people discuss some of the common mistakes made when crossing over from 3.5 to PFPRG.
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2mcmk?What-are-some-things-about-the-Pathfinder#1
And I would probably buy an adventure you wrote.
I haven’t used any of the D&D variants for many years, but would you consider making a system neutral adventure module?
There are precedents for having adventures being system neutral being profitable, too. James Edward Raggi The IV’s stuff is vaguely D&D-ish, but it’s mostly system neutral, I believe.
(Mr. Raggi pronounces his entire name that way, because you might confuse he and his work for that of another RPG designer with a similar name). (Who also lives in Finland).
Neither. Why not 4e or Next?
Well admittedly, 4e isn’t really going to be supported anymore (and thus, he wouldn’t make any money back), and NEXT isn’t even out yet. System neutral would be cool though.
Crap, I don’t like either of those systems. I guess 3.5’s closer to 3E, though
Also, I can’t believe you’re posting again! I’ve got a lot to catch up on
When I tried to choose both answers, a dialog box appeared, telling me that the maximum number of allowed choices was 1.
Like Broozer Bear said, I don’t really buy adventures, but your essays on adventure design and such are very valuable to me.
Given his essays and reviews of adventures, I’m super excited to see what kind of adventures he’d write honestly. I know thanks to him and his website, I’ve changed my way of GMing for the better.
Like Odraude commented, the essays Justin produces, more than any other source by far, have changed the way I organize my whole approach to GMing and designing adventures.
System neutral would be my favorite approach, but I would be very interested to see any adventure he produces, whatever the system.
I chose number three, but I wanted to let you no it was not because of the “from you” part. I don’t buy modules, I have way too many ideas of my own to ever actually run them all. I do however, respect you as an author, and would buy any books you published about HOW to run or design a module that I could use in my adventures.
Wouldn’t it be ok to do both? I would love to buy a 3.5 adventure and don’t have any experience of pathfinder.
Originally Pathfinder claimed to be completely backwards-compatible with 3.5, although that’s not talked about as much lately, now that there’s so much PF stuff published. But it should be doable to write material for one with some notes on what to change to fit the other.
I’m not a buyer of adventure modules (other than maybe in a research capacity for creation of my own, layout, organization etc), but why not use L&L?
I lean somewhere between system-neutral and some level of basic systematization of adventures, as a guideline to power levels etc. In this capacity L&L could be seen as a lowest-common-denominator to both 3.5 and PF. Simple moster, trap and hazard formats following the tables in the Black Book Beta.
btw, I’ve included L&L (beta though it is) in my list of recommended rulesets for my personal campaign world. Cheers!
13th Age. It combines the best features of Pathfinder/3.5 and 4e, with half the crunchiness, and a smattering of indie mechanics and themes. It can’t be beaten, really.
@ Justin,
It’s been a few days, do you have any preferences for Pathfinder, 3.5, or system neutral, yet? Do you prefer 3.5 over 3.0, and is there any reason for one over the other?
Can you tell me how to put ITALICS into text? I notice you’ve got them in your posts, and I can’t find how to do that.
Re: PF vs. 3.5. At this point I strongly suspect I’ll end up going with PF stats. A 3 to 1 preference is kind of hard to ignore. I’m measuring the possibility of doing both a 3.5 version and a PF version, but in addition to the extra work of dual-statting it would also mean the extra work of separate layouts, separate proofreading, separate publication, etc. It’s a lot of extra work.
Re: L&L. Well, the game doesn’t actually exist in a finished form yet. In addition, it’s 100% compatible with 3.5. And, realistically, the only hitch in using a PF module with L&L would be the different skill names.
Re: 4E. I don’t like 4E. I’m also not a fan of the licensing agreement available for it. In addition, 4E is mechanically incapable of handling the types of adventures I like to run and design.
Re: Next. It’s still in playtest and there’s no licensing for it at all. Maybe next year when the game has actually be released this will be an option.
Re: System neutral. To be blunt, I don’t think system neutral products make any sense. Any utility that you get from a system neutral adventure, for example, is identical to what you can get from an adventure statted up for a specific system that you don’t use. (Just ignore the stat blocks.) So it always makes more sense to include stats for something because by doing so you’ve always added utility and never removed it. In this case I’m trying to identify which system will bring the most utility to the most people; and anybody who would be comfortable ignoring those stats and converting the material to their favorite game system will hopefully also pick up a copy.
Re: Italics. You can use HTML coding to create bold and italic in your comments.
I’ll hopefully have more to say about this project soon. I’m afraid I’m behind on everything because of how sick I’ve been this past month.