|
|
||||||||||||||||||
| Paizo Pathfinder® GameMastery® Planet Stories® Paizo Games | |||||||||||||||||||
| About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ | |||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Favorites
Blue Chris This hat just doesn't sit right anymore after puked on it! 
As for how that last post relates to gaming... there are actually a ton of queer folk at Paizo. We've always been very forward about saying as much, but many of us have remained quiet about who *specifically* is LGBTwhatever. Part of that is just a personal privacy issue, but I know that I've sometimes second-guessed myself about such public declarations for fear of unexpected future awkwardness. But you know what? Especially in the current political environment, the greatest thing any of us can do to advance equality is to simply live openly, and in doing so remind folks that non-straight people are all around them, all the time. F@&$ discretion. Thank you all for flying the flag.
Seltyiel's a switch-hitter. 
As far as I'm concerned, this question is as appropriate as asking if you've ever run a table for all black people. What gender someone is doesn't change anything about how they play the game, just as it doesn't change if they're of a different ethnicity. If we wouldn't tolerate racial trolling on the boards, I don't see the need to tolerate gender trolling as well. I think the question of running games for women to help overcome the stereotypes about women in gaming (or lack thereof) is a valid topic of discussion, but supporting those same stereotypes (by citing specific members of the community, no less) is what I have issue with here. 
Eh, if I were a good character in such a game I'd be more concerned with fixing whatever was causing an entire race to be born irredeemably evil than murdering helpless symptoms. 
And here we see Merisiel and Harsk giving some kobolds the bird. 
I've reviewed my options and rebuild the character. The new stats are below - the build shines immensely because of the two traits. They basically mean that the moment the character gets fireball he can also empower it - for free! And that's a huge spike in damage. All of his feats are now used on blasting - but he's still a cleric, even though he's a mediocre one. I'm not using Diabolist - as the thing about the soul and ressurection seems very dangerous in PFS play - and because I think the cleric gives more to the build. As Egoish pointed out, getting intensify twice for free (in both feat cost and appliance) is really great. Oh - and at lvl 11 he changes spell specialisation back to Burning Hands - not to get more damage out of it (since it's maxed out) - but to be able to use Greater Spell Specialisation with Burning Hands and Fireball - which are the builds' bread and butter. Human Sorcerer / Cleric
1st lvl Character Tattooed Crossblooded Red Dragon / Orc Sorcerer (1st lvl)
2nd lvl Character Theologian Cleric of Sarenrae (1st lvl)
3rd lvl Character Cleric (2nd lvl)
4th lvl Character Cleric (3rd lvl) (Stat increase: +1 Cha)
5th lvl Character Cleric (4th lvl)
6th lvl Character Cleric (5th lvl)
7th lvl Character Cleric (6th lvl)
8th lvl Character Cleric (7th lvl) (Stat increase: +1 Int)
9th lvl Character Cleric (8th lvl)
10th lvl Character Cleric (9th lvl)
11th lvl Character Cleric (10th lvl)
At character level 11, in one round he can cast both an Intensified Quickened Fireball and en Intensified Empowered Fireball for 32d6+64 dmg – that’s an average of 176 damage. And if things are immune to fire – he’s still a cleric. 
Sutter : "Is this thing heated?!?" Me: ... Sutter: "Or is this... just... you?" Me: ... Sutter: 
I have gone back, re-read that answer, and realized that an understated indication of a slam attack while hands are full, combined with the traditional teapot lore, makes it make perfect sense that, while not my cuppa, a tanuki teabagging is not outside of the realm of possibility. It's license to a GM to say, "You're sacked." 
Blue Chris: Hmmm...Ross operates on the Scotty principle and [robot] Chris operates on the Geordi principle. Interesting. 
They refer to Harsk as little bear. Lem is Goldilocks. Everything from little bear is just right. 
Um...why? It's fairly clear that Valeros has a thing going with both Seoni and Merisiel. Is a polygamous V somehow less scandalous than a polyamorous triangle? And if Seoni and Merisiel hooked up while Valeros was out of the picture, what then? Simply having homosexual and bisexual characters represented doesn't make the world a politically correct diversity utoptia, it just makes it more realistic. I'm certain that if Harsk and Lem were an item, there are corners of Golarion where they could get arrested for shagging, the same as Kyra the cleric can't openly worship her goddess in Taldor. Not having every law and statue penned it, however, lets people figure out what they want for their own campaigns. I'm certain there are anti-miscegenation laws on the books in places too, and in some places Harsk/Lem would be illegal due to dwarf/halfling being illegal. In other places, I'd except the relevant statute would be "so long as you don't do it in the street and frighten the horses," and the back of a wagon certainly counts as that. 
blue chris: Shall we just sit back and wait for Cosmo to finish role-playing with himself? 
If all of you are so busy holding Cosmo, how's he getting any work done? It's a misnomer to think that Cosmo "works at" Paizo so much as "draws a paycheck from" Paizo. Important distinction. ;-) 
All the more reason to not allow it. Paizo seems to see the worst case scenario with everything.
Sara Marie: oh god Sara Marie: I CLICKIED THE WRONG BUTTON Sara Marie: I JUST FOUND ALL OF THE KNIVES Sara Marie: AND THEY ARE VERY SHARP
Blue Chris: ...That reminds me, I need a blowtorch... Blue Chris: ...interesting how much of my cooking equipment recently comes from the hardware store... 
39 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.
348 people marked this as a favorite.
I would like to request a sticky thread be created (not this one because I can't edit it after an hour), that would, in the first post, give a list of guides in this sub-forum. In the thread we'll discuss which guides to include and which category they should be in - it would be a community project. This is my no means a complete list...its just a start. Also, if you are going to post a guide for this list, please have a discussion thread for said guide in the Advice forum so we can link to it. The guide can be off-site, but we need a discussion thread for it, please. Also somewhere in your guide please reference which books you use (Core, APG, UM, UC, etc...).
Alchemist
Antipaladin
Barbarian
Bard
Cavalier
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Gunslinger
Inquisitor
Magus
Monk
Ninja
Oracle
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Samurai
Sorcerer
Summoner
Witch
Wizard
--
Arcane Archer
Arcane Trickster
Assassin
Dragon Disciple
Duelist
Eldritch Knight
Loremaster
Mystic Theurge
Pathfinder Chronicler
Shadowdancer
--
This guide is also mirrored at: 
I guess the question is, "how much of that did they learn from watching what went on at WotC?" Not that the WotC boys sat them down on their knee or anything and explained the wide world of RPGs or anything--more like genuine observational learning from both the good and the bad as well as a bit of intuitive work of their own. The language you're choosing suggests that you may be under the impression we're a bunch of inexperienced noobs copying our best business ideas from the master. That's not the case. I'm pretty sure that our CEO has actually been working in the RPG business longer than anyone currently employed at Wizards of the Coast. She launched Ars Magica with Lion Rampant Games in 1987, Vampire—The Masquerade with White Wolf in 1991, was the very first employee of Wizards of the Coast (which was exclusively a roleplaying company at the time) in 1992, was in charge of integrating TSR into Wizards after the acquisition in 1997, was on the team that launched 3rd Edition—and devised the OGL—in 2000, and founded Paizo (with me) in 2002. (My own RPG business experience began at Wizards in 1993.) In short, while we do pay attention to what WotC does (and what others in our industry are doing), we're fully capable of innovating on our own, thanks.
RedJack, You have a lot of misconceptions about the OGL. So many, in fact, that I couldn't possibly take them point-by-point and get anything else done today. But here's the deal. Our Pathfinder products are published under the OGL. Almost every word in the entire Pathfinder RPG line itself has been declared as Open Game Content, and is thus freely available for republication, modification, etc., by anyone also using the OGL. (Of course, you should check the statements of Open Game Content and Product Identity in each product, as there are a few exceptions, but generally, our mechanics are Open Game Content and our setting material is Product Identity.) So if you use the OGL yourself, you can reprint and/or modify our stat blocks and other mechanics, because they're OGC. The OGL, though, does have some important limitations, especially Section 7, which says "You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark." Because "Pathfinder," "Pathfinder Roleplaying Game", and many of our book titles are trademarked, that means that, using the OGL alone, you're not allowed to mention them. All the Pathfinder RPG Compatibility License really does is serve as "another, independent Agreement" allowing publishers to indicate compatibility with the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game trademark, and to use our compatibility logo, and to use the trademarked names of some of our books. Yes, it does have some restrictions about *how* you can use those things, but it does not contain additional restrictions on the Open Game Content itself. (And it actually couldn't even if we wanted it to, because the OGL itself says that "No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.")
Woman on phone: I have a credit card charge here from you guys and I don't even know who you are! Sara Marie: We're a gaming company. Let me look up the charge and see what its for... Sara Marie: Sara Marie: It looks like its a digital copy of our Core Rulebook. Woman on phone: I know *exactly* which kid this is.... Woman on phone: I will... ...get this taken care of. Woman on phone: Thanks for your help! 
10:26: The door latch trick worked marvelously! Life skill aquired! Heard what sounded like footsteps upstairs and remembered that I am not alone. Somewhere up there is Chris's triops. Lurking... plotting... running around in the air vents on those tiny tail things it totally wants you to think aren't stingers. This pen and gum eraser spear will not serve in the tricloptic face of The Beast. Hummm... 
wow 25$! now i feel cheated for buying from paizo :( i understand they buy in bulk but geez thats 50%! why do us faithful paizo direct buyers get the hose? this makes me feel like us adventure path subscribers should get more of a discount. or maybe free pdf's of major books... just saying.... come on Lisa throw us a bone :D I wish I could find the link, but there was an amazing article in the Wall Street Journal ( I think) that talked about Amazon's business strategy. The fascinating part of it is that Amazon LOSES MONEY on every product they sell that they buy on their own. So how do they stay in business then? They make all their profits on the percentage that they take when a third party business sells THEIR STUFF through Amazon. So when a brick and mortar retail store starts selling through Amazon, the percentage they pay Amazon for that right is what keeps the giant afloat. The article I saw linked from a brick and mortar retail site and the guy who posted it pointed out that if B&M stores wanted to put Amazon out of business, they should just stop selling through them. But of course, these stores sell a LOT of product through Amazon, so they won't turn off that spigot. So that means that Amazon is selling Ultimate Magic + shipping at a cost to you that is BELOW what it costs Amazon. I can tell you that Paizo can't afford to do that. We would be in business for all of a month before we went bankrupt. But Amazon can because they drive traffic to their website with all the ridiculously low prices and free shipping and once you are there, you also buy stuff from third part retailers which feeds the machine. So, no bones, as that would put us out of business. :) Instead, we strive continually to provide the lowest prices that we can and the best quality products and the best customer service. -Lisa 
People said Fighters don't get any love. To prove them wrong, here's my Fighter Guide link!. The scope of the guide is only the most basic Fighter builds (Archery, Two-Handed, Sword and Shield, Two-Weapon Fighting), but you can use some of the tips to help with a variety of different build types.
Sara Marie: Wow, this customer is like, right next door! Ross: For deliveries that close, we should have a "Catapult" delivery method. It's free, but we aren't responsible for damages. 
As a (mostly) uninvolved party, let me hop in here for a second. In the business world (and much as we fans love Paizo and Paizo loves us, it's a business -- it has to be, if it's going to be a good shepherd of the Pathfinder RPG, since Paizo must make enough money to continue to exist in order to keep shepherding), there are frequently things you either can't or won't discuss publicly. Sometimes there are legal reasons for this. Sometimes it's a business decision. Sometimes its just a decision among people who know each other to keep details private. And of course exactly because fans will read, take apart, and analyze everything you say about such issues, it's important (over the long term) not to talk about the why of a silence. Once two groups have made it clear they're not going to divulge details, unless you have a moral or legal imperative to check up on what's going on (as might be the case for reporters, law enforcement, employees, shareholders, or any number of other groups), generally the right thing to do is let the matter drop. I understand fans are often "stakeholders," who have considerable emotional investment in the game they love, the company that produces it, and the people who work for the company. To a degree that's even good for the hobby. And I know seeing something sudden and surprising change in that structure can be worrisome, or even frightening or anger-inducing. I don't think there's anything wrong with asking a generic question about what has been said, or if anyone knows more. After all information doesn't travel instantly (not yet, anyway), and there may be an announcement you missed. And there's certainly nothing wrong with the well-wishing I've seen here and elsewhere. But if that kind of early, open-ended inquiry doesn't produce results, point-blank questions aren't likely to produce any more results, and they can put people unfairly on the spot. Speculating about what might have happened is a gray area, and I try not to do it in public. Whenever you're talking about business deals, employment, money, and potential problems or changes, you're in an emotionally charged area. Exactly because you don't know what's happened, it's hard to know what kind of tone is called for the be respectful of the feelings of others. Obviously if people wanted to talk about it, they would do so when the opportunity was offered. Vic, quite reasonably, wanted to respond to speculation that Borders' bankruptcy might cause a problem for Paizo. That's good business communication with your customers. I don't think it's fair, or at least it's not polite, to use that as an opening to ask about business matters that clearly aren't going to be elaborated on. On the other hand this is a fairly open forum, and the question wasn't asked rudely or as a challenge. Vic answered it professionally, and I doubt Dungeon Grrrl meant anything by it. I suspect she didn't see the question as out of place, and tone is very difficult to convey in email and forum posts. And yes, this exactly the kind of thing that may get discussed more in private, either by email or in a bar at a major game convention. And private questions don't put people on the spot nearly as much, which helps keep tensions down. Hyrum is a good friend, and a great person to have back at Super Genius Games. I know he's pleased people care how he's doing. Let's not let that positive good-wishing take any of us someplace less positive. [End $.02]
(This was initially composed as a response to a question in this thread, but I didn't want to take that thread so far off topic.) ...allow the community to request an OoP product go back into production. Paizo could set a pre-order threshold (maybe public/maybe not) for each OoP item (ie. Map Pack: Village) and once enough people add it to their cart from the list, a print run is set. We don't plan to ever bring back any out-of-print Map Packs or Flip-Mats—at least not in the exact same form. Now, I know a bunch of you are thinking that reprinting is easy and cheap, because we've already done all the work, and paid for all of the art and such, so reprinting a sold-out product is a no-brainer for easy cash in the bank. Seems obvious—but it's not true. First of all, the printing costs are usually the highest costs associated with most products. And since print costs are based strongly on volume, that means for a reprint, we pretty much need to print—and sell—almost as much as we did the first time around so that we can charge the same retail price. And while there's a number of people would buy a reprint of a sold-out product, there's also a *very* large number of people who already own the original printing and have no interest in buying a reprint. Next, keep in mind that most sales for a new product happen in the first month or two, and then taper off over the next couple of months to—hopefully—a slow-but-steady trickle. (You might notice that it usually takes a few years to sell out most of our products. And we've planned things so that that works for us.) Past sales—and our current subscribers—give us the knowledge we need to set print runs and retail prices to ensure that that first burst of sales pretty much covers our costs, allowing the profits to come in slowly over the next year or two, or three. That's one of our primary strategies for staying in business: Cover your costs on the launch. Now, reprints don't get that "new product" burst at the front end. For one thing, we wouldn't be sending it to subscribers, so that's a huge loss in immediate sales right there. Also, our distributors generally place much, much smaller orders for most reprints than they did the first time around. Without that initial sales bump, it would take much longer to sell out the run—and more importantly, we wouldn't be generating the instant cash that lets us pay the print bill out of the product's own cash flow. Now, that said, we do realize that if, say, Map Pack: Village has sold out, that means there's probably some demand for a village-themed Map Pack. Given what we've learned, then, the smart thing to do is design an *all-new* village-themed pack that will satisfy the latent demand while also potentially appealing to a chunk of the audience that bought the first one—especially people who like maps enough to subscribe to the line, and to retailers who can promote it as the hot new thing instead of just something else to restock. While I've put this in the GameMastery thread, the truth is, it applies to most of the products we produce. The same reasons apply to not reprinting our Adventure Paths, Modules, and most other products. There *are* a few exceptions, though; certain products are considered "evergreens"—that is, products that will have a consistent shelf presence, year after year. The Pathfinder RPG Core Rulebook and Bestiary are the most obvious examples. The Pathfinder Chronicles Campaign Setting would be one, except that it was written for 3.5, and the change in rule systems means that we'll be doing more than just a reprint when it comes time. Similarly, the Critical Hit Deck and Critical Fumble Deck, both evergreens, got some tweaks when they went in for reprints, as did Flip-Mat: Basic, and (you'll soon see) the GameMastery Combat Pad. Kill Doctor Lucky is also considered an evergreen; it's been selling well (in different forms) for over a decade now. (Eight evergreen products out of the hundreds we've produced—that's actually pretty good!)
In my post above, I tangentially approached a really, really major issue that's worth a post to itself: print run sizing. It's a complicated topic, but since you've got the background given in my previous post, it's probably easier to discuss here than anywhere else. If you consider my above logic for a bit, you'll realize that one of the biggest challenges we have is setting a print run size. If reprinting is generally bad, then printing too little is just leaving money on the table. Not only have we failed to maximize sales, but there's a possibility that if we'd chosen a higher number, that may have brought our per-unit print costs down more... so there are actually *two* ways that we've failed to maximize return. Of course, if we print *way* too little, then a reprint may actually be viable... but we've *still* left money on the table, because if we'd printed it all at once, the higher volume would have almost certainly given us lower per-unit print costs. And we could have either A) lowered the retail price, which may have increased the appeal to price-sensitive customers, thus resulting in even higher sales, or B) kept the retail price the same, and taken higher profits. On the other hand, if we print too much, then we have product taking up room in our warehouse for years, which does have a monetary cost. If sales eventually trickle to the point that the cost exceeds the revenue, then we have to either discount it or destroy it. Destroying it usually has a cost as well. And while discounting something now and then is ok, and often good for business, when a lot of your products end up on clearance, that actually has a whole bunch of bad effects. One is that it reduces consumer confidence in your products—some folks think if it's on clearance, there must be something *wrong* with it. Another is that it may encourage people to buy your old cheap stuff instead of your new stuff, which not only reduces the profit you make, but also has a cash flow impact by reducing the front-end sales bump. And if that happens a lot, that's death to a product line whose only flaw may have been overprinting. And if we print *way* too much, then the initial sales bump may not even cover our print costs, and we have to shuffle money around from somewhere else to pay for the run. That doesn't just harm the product line—that harms every aspect of the company. If you think about these possibilities a bit, you can see one case that's not covered. What if we print more than we can sell right away, but the sales *don't* slow to a cost-inefficient trickle? Well, that's really what defines an evergreen product. In these cases, the trick is mainly just working out the cash flow to ensure that you can cover the cost of reprinting. That's why sometimes you'll see our evergreens go out of print for a few months—we're letting demand build back up so that we can have a mini-bump at the front to cover more of the reprint cost. (Sometimes, though, the delay is because we're reworking the product a bit, or we're just waiting for the shipment to arrive.) At any rate, you can see that getting the print run size right is really good, and getting it a little bit wrong either way is not the worst thing in the world, but getting it really wrong is really bad. And that's one reason we have subscriptions to so many of our lines. The fact that we know we're going to sell a certain number of copies right out of the gate really brings down the risk for us. Subscriptions let us get more of our print runs into the sweet spot, and that has a huge overall effect on the company. So thank you, subscribers, and those of you who commit regular orders through your retailer; you're—quite literally—the reason we're here. 
Every so often, someone I know or someone on a forum brings up this thread. The latest time, it got me thinking about things that have come about in my Pathfinder campaigns, or that I have heard/thought. So I give you... 1001 Rules for Players in Golarion! Add as many as you'd like! 1. The Thrice Damned House of Thrune is not a cross between the Spanish Inquisition and the Nazi Party. Stop calling them that.
What else can you come up with? 
This is an application I created for myself a few months back and have been slowly improving. It's a simple initiave manager linked with the monsters data pulled from the SRD (as posted at d20pfsrd.com). I've also got tabs for Searching Spells (updated for APG) and Feats. The application runs on Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 7, and requires the .Net Framework 4.0. I've got screenshots here so you can take a look before installing.
The reason it keeps coming back to you—and it's you much more than your item—is that you came onto our boards, trashed our judges and employees, and called us a bunch of glorified copy-and-pasters, with posts dripping in sarcasm and attitude, painting yourself as the victim all the while. I'd especially point out these parts: ...looking over the stuff [Clark's] company has published and the comments he's made before, and listening to his stuff here, I just don't see how his opinion is worth anything. And in your very next post, you state: Now nothing I said so far has been inflammatory... Either you don't understand how you come across, or you don't understand the meaning of the word "inflammatory." And then you write this: I think you should realize that you are representing yourself and your company to your audience, the people that buy your stuff. You know, you also need to realize that people are judging you by the things you say, and though you called Clark a "a giant, over-glorified troll," well, I'll just note that the trolling being done here is all by you. I'll tell you this: if Paizo *had* ever given you an assignment, after seeing the way you conduct yourself on our forums, I'd ensure that we never gave you another one. I don't look forward to the next contest knowing he is a judge. I hope you follow through with the indications you've given that you won't be entering. You'd be wasting everyone's time, because you're disrespectful, and in comportment, you're as far from an RPG Superstar as you can be. I'm glad you think highly of Neil, because you could learn quite a lot from him—and I'm talking about in life, not just in game design. 
Frequently Unknown Rules (through post 150)
including summary from: Change from SRD/D&D to Pathfinder 1. Bardic abilities no longer based on Perform skill other than Countersong and Distraction.
Always like this, but frequently misplayed or not known previously
Summary through Post 114 Frequently Unknown Rules (through post 114)
Change from SRD/D&D to Pathfinder 1. Bardic abilities no longer based on Perform skill other than Countersong and Distraction.
Always like this, but frequently misplayed or subject to oversight
8 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required.
83 people marked this as a favorite.
I'll start. A Bard doesn't need the Perform skill. The only performances that require it are Countersong and Distraction. Inspire Courage et al don't mention it at all, and you don't even need to use your primary artform when using it. It was intentionally left ambiguous so bards didn't have to keep on playing their instrument while using the performances. It's a free action to continue the performance. 
Someone already DID "create Pathfinder before Pathfinder" – it was called Arcana Evolved, and it was backed by Monte Cook! And yet, it was totally unable to break significant market-share compared to WotC's products for as long as WotC was making things that worked off the same network. WotC abandoned the 3.x player network because it was the only way to start making games that weren't OGL-compatible. And they did THAT for exactly the same reason they've stopped selling PDFs: to prove to their corporate overlords they had "fixed" a problem they were internally claiming were hurting sales. When WotC sales go down, they must answer to Darth Potato Head. If sales are down for D&D, the Dice-Bouncing Department Head (exact title may vary) must explain why it's not *his* fault. The easiest way to do this is to blame the actions of someone who is no longer with the company (or assign actions to someone who is no longer with the company, even if they were only tangentally involved – after all they arent around to defend themselves anymore). So it's: Darth Potato Head (DPH): Why are D&D sales down? You had a movie, just like Lord of the Rings! Why can't we license D&D toys to people?! Dice-Bouncing Department Head (DBDH): One of the earlier guys decided to sell easily-pirated copies of our books, my lord. That means we can't sell as many copies, so our sales are artificially deflated. It's not my fault! DPH: Then stop selling those! (Next fiscal quarter) DPH: Okay, NOW why are sales down?! They should have bounded back after you stopped selling pee-dee-effs. DBDH (may be a different person than last time): My lord, the previous directors allow any rebel rabble that wishes sell games that use our rules. Fanbois can sell such thigns out of their garages, and we can't stop them! DPH: Then stop making games they can do that to! DBDH: There are... difficulties... with such a plan my lord. You see, our player base is... DPH: Your player base is nothing! Make a new game! Make a new player base! (Next fiscal quarter) DPH: For the Love of Monopoly, NOW what's wrong? DBDH (yet another guy): Well, eye-covered master of evil, it seems some designers failed to capture the Essentials of a good D&D system, but we have a plan to fix this... And so it goes. Now, the Paizo version: Lisa: Erik, why are sales down!? Erik (looks confused): Ah, they aren't? Lisa (mollified): Oh, Good. I was having a flashback, I guess. But.. What if sales *were* down? What would you do? Erik (confident): Make better games! Lisa: Good! Good plan. Weird, I haven't heard that before. 
I didn't do it, I swear! And the site really is down... unless you're here in the office. Here, we all have access to the site and we're all reading your posts and making snarky replies and laughing at everyone who isn't us because you can't post replies and can't even see our posts in the first place. Ha ha! Also, having the interweb tubes get all clogged up like this sucks when you're waiting for the test database to finish re-indexing 25,000 products so you can test the upcoming new hotness search code that is super nifty and will completely and totally rock. 
Dear Pirate, Is this crackdown on your girlfriend's cheating behavior really necessary? When I have sex with your girlfriend, that doesn't reduce the amount of sex you get to have with your girlfriend, so it's not really hurting you. In fact, studies have regularly shown that cheating girlfriends tend to have even more sex with their primary partners than loyal girlfriends. So letting me have casual sex with your girlfriend will actually improve your love life. In fact, your girlfriend is already planning on having sex with me. There's nothing you can do to stop her from having sex with me. So why not just admit that your relationship with your girlfriend isn't monogamous and tell her its okay for her to have sex with as many guys as she wants? Anything less than that, and you're just punishing your loyal male friends who have taken the time to befriend your girlfriend, yet don't get to have sex with her because they respect your boundaries. Why are you punishing them by not giving them permission to have sex with your girlfriend when I get to freely have sex with her because I'm not your friend and don't respect your boundaries? Your ineffectual attempts to enforce your exclusive right to have sex with your girlfriend make no sense, and only serve to hurt your friends.
Why don't we sell PDFs through game stores? Here's the real problem: the economics of subscriptions through retail just don't make sense, for us or for them. Before I explain that, let me go through some other issues. Every PDF that we distribute goes through our watermarker; that's not negotiable. First, security of our electronic products is very important to us, and second, it allows us to ensure that people who buy things from us will be able to redownload them at their leisure if they need to—even if their FLGS has gone out of business. It also allows us to notify purchasers if those files are ever updated, or of any other perks that might come with buying a particular PDF. We will not distribute PDFs via unsecured media (like CD-ROMs), or through middlemen, because they can't provide the same level of security *or* service. What this means is that any potential retail sale of one of our PDFs would have to go through our system. The customer would need to have an account with us, and we'd communicate directly with them when downloads became available. (That right there will be a problem for some retailers—some view us as their competition, and wouldn't dream of sending their customers to our site, for any reason, ever.) But this actually solves a lot of problems—among other things, it helps ensure that subscriptions have *actual* subscribers (as opposed to the retailers giving out PDFs whether there's a subscription or not). And it allows us to provide "Subscriber" tags for those customers on our messageboards. The retailer would also have to have an account with us, and we'd have to verify that they're a real retailer. We'd need to design a new a system for letting them purchase subscriptions and tie them to people who may or may not already exist in our system (which also means we have to deal with potential customer privacy issues). None of these are simple things—each is way more complicated than most of you would ever suspect... but for the purposes of continuing this discussion, let's say it's all handled. Ok, so now it comes time to ship a new subscription product. In some order, the following things have to happen: the product is paid for by the customer; the product is picked up from the retailer by the customer; the PDF is made available to the customer. There are a couple of ways to handle this, but I suspect that most retail subscribers would want to have access to the PDF at pretty much the same time as paizo.com subscribers, and that generally happens about two weeks before the retailer even has the book. That means that the first of those actions to happen would be issuing the PDF. But wait! What if the customer never buys the book? We've already given him a free PDF. Worse yet, what if he hasn't bought a book in months, and the retailer hasn't told us? Maybe we've given him *lots* of free PDFs. Well, the way to prevent this is to ensure that payment is collected before the PDF is issued. And, due to the previously mentioned timing issue, that means that Paizo has to collect the payment—otherwise, you're waiting until someone notifies you that you need to pay the retailer, and then you have to pay, and then we have to find out that you paid, and then we can give you the PDF. (And you'll still have to visit the retailer in couple of weeks when your book shows up.) So, fine—payment will be through Paizo. But that means that we need to pay the retailer some portion of the amount we collected. (We also have to verify that the retailer actually ordered at least one copy of the book for every subscription he has sold, which is a whole other complicated issue that we'll also assume is handled for the purposes of this discussion.) So, let's look at what a retailer typically expects, based on a normal Pathfinder Adventure Path volume (because that's the line that would probably do best for retail subscriptions). A given AP volume has a cover price of $19.99; let's call it an even $20 for simple math. We sell to distribution at 60% off cover price, or $8. Retailers normally buy from their distributor at about 50% off cover price, so they generally pay the distributor $10, and make $10 when they sell that copy. To sum up: for a normal retail sale of an AP volume, Paizo gets $8, the distributor gets $2, and the store gets $10. Now, paizo.com subscribers pay $13.99 (let's call it $14) for an AP volume. How shall we split that up? Remember that we make $8 on a normal retail sale, and the retailer makes $10. If we let the retailer take the cut he's used to, that leaves us $4—half of what we would normally make for a retail sale, and that doesn't even factor in the credit card processing fee that was added to the equation. We're probably not even covering our cost-of-goods with the remaining $3-and-change. If we instead take the $8 we normally make on retail sales—which is still $4 less than we make on a regular subscription sale—that only leaves $4 for the retailer, and that might not cover *his* expenses. And even it it does, how many retailers would think taking $4 instead of $10 is a good tradeoff? (The answer is the ones who believe that if they don't, you'll buy from us instead, so they're really making $4 instead of $0—but those retailers probably are going to feel a bit held hostage, and so they may not be especially happy to see you every month, and they also won't be terribly happy about "having to" participate with us.) But even if that split *were* enough to entice a few retailers into participating, does it make sense for us to do it? We've said before that subscriptions are our bread-and-butter—they ensure that month-to-month, worst case, we're still covering our operating expenses. And they do that *because* they make us a higher profit margin per sale than the same product through retailers. Basically, everybody who cancels their subscription to buy at retail reduces that margin, and we can afford for that to happen a little bit—but if it were to happen a lot, or worse yet, be *encouraged* through a retailer subscription plan, we'd be losing our safety net. But even if we could work out the economics, the problems don't even end there. What if the retailer for whatever reason can't provide the level of service that you should be getting? What if he doesn't even have a book for you? You paid us, so we're ultimately responsible for that—yet we have no control over it. And this isn't even a worst-case scenario, because there's an entire part of the process I haven't even touched on yet, and it lies completely out of our control: delivery of the printed product. You've got your PDF, and a couple of weeks later, the retailer gets your copy of the book. Now, he has to let you know the book is in. (We don't have access to their inventories or their shipment manifests, so we can't tell you.) Some retailers may be organized enough to handle that flawlessly, every time. Others will not be, and it *will* generate calls to our customer service line that we can't really help with much—at least not until we're pretty sure that the retailer for whatever reason can't or won't help you, and then we'll have to solve your problem at our cost, and only after you've endured more frustration than any of us would like. By this point, everybody has lost. And what if a particular retailer has a *lot* of problems, and it becomes clear that he just can't *handle* subscriptions, and we have to cut him off? Then we have to go to his subscribers and tell them that if they want to keep their subs, they'll need to do it completely with us, and pay for shipping, and so on... and that won't be a fun day for anyone. (Especially if said retailer then starts telling people how Paizo stole his customers.) The bottom line is that the notion of supporting the local retailer is great, but I just don't think retail subscriptions are the way to do it—I think that there's no winning scenario that makes sense to everyone there. We want our interactions with retailers to involve higher rewards and less risk of problems—things that will be more clearly "win-wins." Things like Pathfinder Society, and Free RPG Day promotions, and other retailer-oriented projects in the works that we're not talking about just yet. That's where we need to focus our efforts for now. 
I sent a letter to Scott at Wizards in about September of the year before (2007). It predicted many of the coming problems. Unfortunately, I only have a saved draft of the letter (and the file date on the file is 9/9/07). This is not the final letter. But it is of historical value, so I post it here (again, for the first time anywhere): Scott, I appreciate you talking with me the other day. I am very much looking forward to 4e and to helping transitioning our fans to 4e. I know you have an internal meeting coming up soon to discuss a number of issues regarding licensing and content and third party publishers. I have been thinking about what we talked about, and I have some thoughts and a proposal that come down to this: Let me help you. My guess is that you guys are getting ready for the 4e launch and are firmly focused on getting to your “pencils down” date which I am guessing is about the end of the year so that you can make print deadlines, etc. Getting content to third parties and dealing with the legal ramifications of licenses, etc, is probably not the highest thing on your list of things to deal with right now. Or even if you did have time, my guess is that your group’s time would be better spent elsewhere. I have a very unique experience with the licenses and the history of getting said content to third party publishers. So I hope I have some valuable things to offer. Here are some bullet points that show what I mean and what I can do for you. Please pardon me if I repeat things that are obvious to you. I’m just trying to work it through. • There is significant resistance to 3e to 4e. My sense from our discussion is that you understand this and it is important to you. I would hate to see the player base of the game fragment. • Third party publishers can help transition that significant group. Luckily, respected third party publishers can help you reach people who may be on the fence. Guys like XXXXX [no need to drag others into this -Clark] and I have a good deal of impact with our audiences. I have been out there saying we are going to embrace 4e so long as Wizards allows it. And that stance can change people’s minds or influence “4e rejectors”. In a weird way, third party publishers have the “street cred” that Wizards may not be able to have simply because we are not Wizards, if you see what I mean. If Necro adopts 4e, then it is ok for this group of gamers to adopt 4e. And that is what they are saying. Our boards went from “no way we are doing 4e” to “well, I’ll wait and see” or “if NG does it, I will too” within a short time of me saying we were going 4e. The good third party publishers can help you. • You need to get content out to their party publishers by the end of the month so we can support launch with viable products. The market is not the same now as it was at launch of 3e when a 32-page adventure was a viable d20 product. And, just like you likely need a “pencil down” date of the end of the year to meet launch, so do we. Our products are larger. Most of us ship out our printing to China or out of the states. We can’t get this stuff in December and make a launch in May-June. We have to have this by the end of this month. Don’t force publishers to make the choice between waiting for the 4e playtest rules which by definition means we will only be able to make 32-page products for launch OR rejecting 4e and keeping on with our current products. Forcing that choice means more people will choose to reject 4e and support 3.5. How many, I don’t know. But it is being discussed right now. • Delay in acting may lead to publishers staying with 3e and not supporting 4e By not getting us content early, you may be forcing the hands of some companies to stay with 3.5. Because most companies simply can’t deal with the delay and lag time or simply can’t delay product schedules that far. This short time frame is a real problem. • It doesn’t need to be perfect. It doesn't matter what state the current rules documents are in. They aren’t final, we understand that. We can all deal with that and we don’t care. We can’t simply create products and then jam the new stuff in when we get it in December. But we can create with draft rules and then make changes to products made using those draft rules in December. That is workable. • We will accept any restrictions you want to place on it. I helped make the original Creature Collection that beat WotC's MM to press. Though everyone denies it, I have always wondered if there was some lingering animosity from that. Ryan says no. All the people from that time frame say no. But they are gone, mostly. If you want to tell us: "dont do that this time," we would all agree to that I am sure. Whatever limits you want on our product creation, thats fine. • It can be informal, that is how we did it before. Let history be your guide. Prior to 3e launch, we got draft rules. We had a good lead time. We got revised versions when the actual rules went to print. We all handled it fine. It was all done informally and by an email (which, strangely enough, was from Ryan to me). That email became known as the "gentleperson's agreement." And it was honored by everyone. • Leave the license issues for later, after your “pencil down” date. Maybe I am wrong, but I get the sense that Wizards is intertwining the decision of getting the content to third party publishers with the issue of how to license the use of said content. Don’t join those. Getting the content out doesn’t mean you have finalized what we can do with the stuff. Don’t let those decisions slow down getting content to your third party publishers. Get us the content. Then we can figure out what to do with it once you are past the pencil down date for 4e. • Trust the publishers. Like I said, we have all done this before informally and with a handshake. It worked out fine. And you know who you can trust. You know the people and companies who have been good caretakers of the content, who have been helpful, who have tried to give instead of just take, and who actually cared about D&D and Open Gaming. • Do it like we did before—just give us a short list of what you don’t want us to use. Give us the draft versions of the rules (not to everyone if you don’t want to, that’s up to you). Give us a list of what you DON’T want us to use. That is what we got from Ryan. “You can use everything from the PHB except don’t refer to the GH gods, or X or Y or Z” or whatever it was he said. It was a list of a few things. I can dig the email up if you want to see it. • Solution: Let me do it. I will do it for you if you want. If the problem is the time crunch of getting this done while dedicating all efforts to finalizing 4e, let me step up and take it off your plate. Forward me your normal NDA so I can see what it covers. I will craft a short addendum to your normal NDA stating that these draft rules are provided to potential third-party publishers. Providing this content for your review is no guarantee that you will subsequently be allowed to use it, or, if allowed to use it, what the terms and scope of that use will be. In agreeing to receive these draft rules you agree not to distribute, etc. Heck, whether you want me to or not I am going to do it for you anyway and send you my draft. I want to make it easy for you to get this stuff out to us. Clark PS: I do have some licensing issues in case you wanted to address them. But my priority is to get the rules content to us asap. Don’t make use of the d20 STL conditioned on a fee (or don’t make that the only barrier to entry). [edited by Clark to protect the guilty, don't ask]. ‘Nuff said. You don’t have to say it. I said it. Don’t try to resurrect the d20 logo as a quality brand, that isn’t what it has come to mean. d20 is a valuable logo—but to you, not to us. Let d20 mean “dominant rule system,” which is what it means. Don’t try to revive it as a mark of quality. The reason people moved away from the logo was because of the d20 STL, which had restrictions. Just let the d20 STL be what it is. Allow use of the phrase “Compatible with Dungeons and Dragons” Let us do this. Seriously. Just like the old Judges Guild products. It’s not an endorsement. It’s not a loss of your IP. We would all have to say “D&D is a registered trademark of WotC, used by permission, its use is not a challenge…blah blah blah.” It’s real simple language, done all the time. Let us refer to the titles of new books and item/class/race/spell etc. names from that book One of the problems with the current license is that it didn’t let us help you sell books other than the core rules. Big mistake. Though I never used it, I actually got permission from Wizards to refer to some of the splat books and their feats and spells, such as “Erithrax, Wiz5/Druid5/Vermin Lord 4*; [rest of stats] *The Vermin Lord is detailed in the Book of Vile Darkness”. Just a simple reference like that would be great. It would help us help you sell those books and it opens up all this killer content for us that we want to use. Because, while some might not want to admit it, Wizards has been making some really, really great stuff recently. Don’t worry about perceived fairness about how you deal with the license issues. You are Wizards. You will always be blamed for something. Not opening up enough. Too many restrictions. Playing favorites when you aren’t. In my view, you shouldn’t worry about this. In my view, your only focus should be “how do we create the right pool of third party companies that will help support and enliven 4e at launch and for the sustainable future, and transition people from 3e to 4e.” Please let me help you with this.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Posts
