Well, quite frankly, if their overreaching their ability to fix a game, then maybe they should make somewhat less ambitious games.
I realize that it's a lot of code, and that it will be difficult to find. But that's their job. And if they want customers to continue to pay for their product, they should actually be trying to put out a product that is as bug-free as possible.
And if they nearly have a complete inability to code for the PS3, maybe they should just accept that, and quit trying.
Unfortunately, he's had his fingers, tongue, and eyes removed.
Agreed. Traps should be brutal, and part of that brutality is achieved by playing with the expectations of them, expecially placement.
And nothing says "fun" like the riddle:
Riddle, DC 25
"What's the riddle, Mr. Fun GM?"
Or the trap:
Trap, Perception DC 25, Disable Device DC 30, 1d6 damage
"What kind of trap just hit me? Can we salvage any components?"
Of course, what you're advocating is a purely ROLLplaying game.
Cthulhu is the most famous creaturein the Mythos, but he is far from "invincible". He's a reasonable CR 30, especially considering he was put back to sleep with a boat to the face.
Actually, if you re-read the story, the boat to the face did NOT put him to sleep. Upon being hit by the boat, he took gaseous form, and then then Johhansen pushed the boat to it's max, running away as Cthulhu reformed.
Cthulhu returned to R'lyeh and his deathless sleep because the stars were only right for a very short time on that occassion.
And yet you license the franchise to the company voted WORST GAME COMPANY OF THE YEAR, twice in a row. That's right. Two years running.
I'd just like to point out that gamers are staggeringly entitled, and this proves it. EA was NOT voted worst GAME company of the year....they were voted worst company of the year. Think about that. Some company have executives that steal millions of dollars from investors. But entitled gamers vote EA as worse than those companies because they don't like the ending of Mass Effect.
I'm sorry, but I can't take the whole EA is the worst company thing seriously. It's f@&&ing ridiculous. It doesn't make EA look bad, it makes gamers look like f!+@ing morons.
I find it amusing how many things are waived away by supporters of Schrodinger's Wizard as being under their Contingency spell. Since any single wizard can only have a single contingency active at one time. Oh well, why should they lock that down when they don't bother to lock down their spells memorized, etc?
I would imagine that the forthcoming campaign setting will give some more details on some of those gods (although I doubt it tackles all of them...then again this is FGG, they aren't afraid of making books that are big and heavy and do d8 bludgeoning damage at a minimum).
To be honest, I've never really thought the conversions between any of the pre-d20 editions were that complicated. It'd rate it as about the same as conversions between 3.5 and pathfinder....you can make it more complicated if you insist that everything is 100% converted, but for the most part you can just use the stats that are given and make any absolutely necessary conversions on-the-fly.
That ogre is a bit different than the offical by-the-Monster Manual ogre? Does it really matter?
I realize that this is an unpopular view here, but I think that if you truly and completely fixed all the problems with 3.x/PFRPG, the end result would bear so little relation to what we have now that many people would end up hating it on principle alone.
And as long as backwards compatibility remains a goal, you aren't going to make too much progress in ironing out all the wrinkles.
Yes, but my point is that for some people, when they are populating a world, inserting the token homosexuals (because let's face it, that's what some of you are asking for) may simply not occur to them.
When I hear the word "couple" I automatically think of a man and a woman.
When I hear the word "family" I automatically think of a father, a mother, and a kid or two.
Are there couples and families out there that don't conform to those mental images? Of course. But it's what comes to MY mind. I know some of you out there think that makes me evil, and that 1 out of every 10 times I think of a couple they should be a same sex couple. But that just ain't how it is. Sorry.
Except we have quite a few post here that strongly imply that if someone's campaign doesn't feature homosexual relationships at least occasionally, then they must be a raging homophobic bigot.
Yeah...I mean whereas most of the gods care and try to have an active presence in the affairs of the mortals, even if only through priesthoods, The Outer Gods are pretty much indifferent, and some of them probably closer to blind properties of the Universe than beings with actual personality.
As a massive Lovecraft fan, that would be my take.
Of course, the exception that proves the rule is Nyarlathotep.
In fact, it'd be my personal take that Nyarlathotep is powering clerics of any of the Outer Gods.
Yeah. I've seen some people essentially espousing the view that unless the GM made a house rule / ruling known before the "campaign" began, that he has no right to impliment it later. Which makes me wonder if these people have ever actually played this game. As a player, I don't feel like i'm doing my job if I don't do something that GM didn't see coming every once in a while. And as a GM, I'm a bit disappointed if the players don't do something I would never have imagined.
Pathfinder was essentially the second major reworking of the d20 system, (the first being 3.5). There comes a point when the bugs that remain can't be ironed out because they're inherently a part of the system.
I'm not opposed to a game system staying mostly the same throughout several editions. One of my favorite games is Call of Cthulhu. It has stayed remarkably stable through six editions...Paizo makes larger changes to the Pathfinder system in just their reprints than Chaosium has made in over 30 years across six editions.
But the difference, at least to me, is that the BRP system doesn't come with so many inherent flaws as does d20. I'm sure the Paizo Defense Force will be here to flame me now.
That said, I have to recommend the games The Longest Journey and Dreamfall to everyone who wants a less combaty fantasy/scifi game. There is some combat in the game, but it's only a little and doesn't feel as much as "filler" as in other games. It focuses heavily on story, has some great dialogue and a bit of sneaking.
There's also a third game in the series coming, and the possibility of a fourth.
At least Paizo doesn't oversupply us with classes and prestige classes like 3.5 did. I'm happy with the speed that things are being developed.
Well, archetypes are becoming the new prestige classes. And they are flinging those out pretty steadily.
Charlie Bell wrote:
I don't know about popularity, sales figures, etc, but I DO know that Paizo considers the AP line to be the core of its business, not the rulebook line.
Personally, I could also deal with a scaling-back of new rules content (and even some of the rules-oriented setting material). I could easily deal with the Player's Companion line being scaled back to 3-4 books per year, and the rulebook line back to one bestiary per year, and maybe another rulebook every year or two. That would leave the real meat of the setting material (Campaign Setting books and the AP volumes) at it's current rate, while turning the dial back on the inevitable power creep and abundance of the abhorrent "Timmy Cards". Maybe with the time they saved they could bring the Module line back to bi-monthly or even monthly, while keeping the recent increased page count. I personally find actual adventures more interesting than "Ooze-Slayer's Guide, Part III".
If Paizo hadn't announced Pathfinder, somebody else would have published a 3.x rulebook. There's a question as to how successful it would be without Paizo's APs and similar support, though.
Someone did. Bad Axe Games put out Trailblazer, which is a different take on a revision of 3.5. It's not as purty, and has B&W pictures, but the system is actually a much better revision of 3.X than Pathfinder achieved. However, it didn't come from a familiar company, and they provided almost no support...little wonder it's fairly obscure.
Pathfinder's success is based on the recognition Paizo had gained in the industry prior to 4e, the enormous amount of quality support they have given the game, and their relatively high production values.
It's not based on a half-page legal annex that most players have never bothered to read.
...I like the fact that Pathfinder has, since 1977, endured more playtesting and generally monkeying around than any other rules set. Essentially, I believe Pathfinder inherits the original D&D system, and as such evolved from that, unlike 4E.
Did I skip the day that Paizo and/or Monte Cooke passed out the Kool-Aid?