Quote from: CavScout;259747Wouldn't demanding I provide some answer to some point of yours be the opposite of "ignoring"?

Who fucking cares Cav?  Really man, does this have anything to do with the anything?  No one cares why you won't answer a simple question.  You've said I'm wrong, so why?  Why am I wrong?

Why do you think the statement "Pathfinder™ to continue under the 3.5 rules." is a statement about the Pathfinder RPG™ and not about the Pathfinder™ line of adventure paths, even after being shown the clarifying statement "Until the finished Pathfinder RPG's release as a hardcover rulebook in August 2009, all of Paizo's popular Pathfinder-brand products will continue under the current 3.5 rules set."

Where is the confusion?  What makes you think I'm wrong?

Quote from: Koltar;259751Anyone mind if I back up Jackalope here?

In the past month or two, we've had PATHFINDER groups play at the store. When they play their game sessions several of them buy 3.5 books directly off of our shelves - because they are still mostly compatible with what they are playing.

One Saturday we had 18 people split into 3 groups playing the game at our store, last saturday it was around 6 or 7 (some of the regulars had schedule problems). One of their players, a housewife, drove all the way up from Louisville , Kentucky just to play in a PATHFINDER game.

Mark this in your notebooks - I'm halfway threough the thread and agreeing with most of what Jackalope is saying on this topic.

I still say much of the thread could be avoided if the first thing agreed what what "backwards compatible" meant.

Quote from: CavScout;259507Folks, get your mensa decoder rings out...

Cavie - they don't need a "decoder ring" .

Lord help me , but I'm siding with Jackalope on all of this. Paizo publishing used pretty plain language, so did Jackalope.

In this whole trumped argument , Jackalope is quoting directky from PAIZO press releases. Its also the same thing those of us at the retail staores have been told.

ANY D&D 3.5 product that we still have on our shelves is supposed to be compatible with PATHFINDER books when they come out.


Oh, and its the local version of the PATHFINDER society that has been meeting at our store. They're all good folks and look like they are all having fun with the game.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Jackalope;259753Who fucking cares Cav?

Obviously you do. You will declare you need something while at the same time ignoring said something as it suits you. You keep demanding something be posted a second time that was ignored purposely the first time.

You must think I am insane to "[do] the same thing over and over again and [expect] different results".

I mean, shit, when Seanchai responds to you, your reponse begins with, "No. I'm sorry, but you have the reading skills of a six year old if you believe that is true." Makes me kinda of glad you sometimes ignore me.

Quote from: Koltar;259758ANY D&D 3.5 product that we still have on our shelves is supposed to be compatible with PATHFINDER books when they come out.

I am guessing you've simply missed the nuances of the arguments that have been going on then... as the issue is what does "compatible" means. Some are suggesting that unless you can play it with no changes or adaptations it's really not compatible while others are argue that even if you have to make changes to make it play right it is compatible.

As one poster pointed out, if it is 3.5 compatible, why doesn't it carry that logo?

Quote from: CavScout;259763As one poster pointed out, if it is 3.5 compatible, why doesn't it carry that logo?

Oh For Pity's Sake!!!

If you had paid attention over the past 2 or 3 years - ALL of PAIZO"s Gamemastery products have used the phrase :

Quotecompatible with the world's most popular roleplaying game.

Rational, reasonably intelligent gamers know that refers to D&D 3.5.


- Ed C.

Yet you ignored or missed:

I am guessing you’ve simply missed the nuances of the arguments that have been going on then… as the issue is what does “compatible” means. Some are suggesting that unless you can play it with no changes or adaptations it’s really not compatible while others are arguing that even if you have to make changes to make it play right it is compatible.

Quote from: CavScout;259773Yet you ignored or missed:

I am guessing you've simply missed the nuances of the arguments that have been going on then... as the issue is what does "compatible" means. Some are suggesting that unless you can play it with no changes or adaptations it's really not compatible while others are arguing that even if you have to make changes to make it play right it is compatible.

No I didn't miss it.

 You're just wrong and like to argue too much.

 On this topic, Jackalope happens to be right.




See my previous, earlier post. IF customers/gamers/browsers at the store can buy a 3.5 product on the spot and its compatible with the game they are playing - then its 'compatible'.
Its as simple as that.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;259770Rational, reasonably intelligent gamers know that refers to D&D 3.5.
- Ed C.

Not anymore it doesn't...

Quote from: Koltar;259775See my previous, earlier post. IF customers/gamers/browsers at the store can buy a 3.5 product on the spot and its compatible with the game they are playing - then its 'compatible'.
Its as simple as that.

So, you've defined "compatible" as what folks do in your store? I mean, shit, we're right back to my post back in #122. You've simply done what others have done by defining the term your way and declaring others wrong based off that definition.

It seems as if this entire discussion hinges on the definition of "backwards compatible," but no one has really made an effort to define the term, and thus the truth of its compatibility or lack thereof is obscured behind a fog of rhetoric. Which is too bad, because the issue here is not whether Pathfinder's degree of interoperability with D&D 3.5e is sufficient to be considered "backward compatible," but rather what that degree of interoperability is, itself.

No, I take that back: both questions are interesting and valid, but there seems to be some confusion - some purposeful, some not - between answers to the two questions.

Quote from: Engine;259811It seems as if this entire discussion hinges on the definition of "backwards compatible," but no one has really made an effort to define the term,......................

My definition? : If its "backwards compatible" enough that my customers can buy 3.5 stuff and use it with PATHFINDER.

If my customers and gamers at the store are happy with it - then thats compatible just enough.


- Ed C.

Quote from: Koltar;259775See my previous, earlier post. IF customers/gamers/browsers at the store can buy a 3.5 product on the spot and its compatible with the game they are playing - then its 'compatible'.
Its as simple as that.

But I can do that with a 1st edition AD&D module and 4e. Are they now compatible?

Seanchai

Quote from: Koltar;259823My definition? : If its "backwards compatible" enough that my customers can buy 3.5 stuff and use it with PATHFINDER.

If my customers and gamers at the store are happy with it - then thats compatible just enough.

And that's a very logical and practical definition for you, personally, because it addresses the extent of your concerns. However, for a general discussion involving many people who aren't present at your gaming store, it would be insufficient and unverifiable.

We could adapt the definition, of course: one could say, "if its 'backwards compatible' enough that one can buy 3.5 stuff and use it with Pathfinder." But this seems unnecessarily broad, as well: I can [and probably will] use GURPS with Shadowrun, but I wouldn't say in a press release that GURPS is "backward compatible with Shadowrun!"

It seems to me that the discerning factor - if there can be said to be a discerning factor, and not a range of consideration - is the amount of effort required to use one with the other.

Quote from: Seanchai;259827But I can do that with a 1st edition AD&D module and 4e. Are they now compatible?

Seanchai

It depends upon what degree of 'compatible' a given individual is comfortable with.

For example, (and I swear to God I made a reply about this earlier today), I can run Office 97 on Vista with limited problems.  A few tweaks to the memory set up, and I am good to go.  There is no way on this earth that Office 2007 will run on Windows 95, short of ripping out the guts and re-writing just about all of it.

Running a 1st Edition module in 4e would require a good deal of re-writing, to the point of simply using the plot line and the maps.  Using a 4e module in 1st Edition would require as much or more.  Probably more, because the 1st Ed monsters can be mapped to the same monster in 4e, or a similar one.  4e monsters would be more difficult to map back to 1st Ed, as there are fewer correlations, and a conversion would require intensive work to change at-wills and encounter powers to something compatible, including damage ranges.

In that regard, 4e is somewhat backward compatible, but not as much as 2nd Ed.