Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Akata

Odraude's page

Goblin Squad Member. Pathfinder Society Member. 6,352 posts. No reviews. 1 list. 1 wishlist. 2 Pathfinder Society characters.


RSS

1 to 50 of 6,352 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

All this shows is that even eight months later, this is still an issue on both sides of the argument. And it's better to actually resolve this with a reasonable dialogue than with telling people that they just don't understand. We're capable of comprehending the reasoning behind it. We just think it was poorly done and reflects negatively on a goddess characterized as Good. And I'd rather have a meaningful conversation about it than seeing potshots taken at our criticism every time Iomedae is mentioned.

So actual question time. What type of sources and inspirations are there going to be for Occult Adventures?


Rysky wrote:
Odraude wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:


No change. There are only 9 alignments, but the number of different personalities each can have is limitless. You can have a friendly lawful good person as much as you can have a stern one. Iomedae's a stern one. And furthermore, as written in that adventure, it's only the troublemaker PCs who really see that side of her.

Actually, as written, anyone that doesn't answer her questions the way she wants gets attacked, in addition to attacking trouble makers. I ran that encounter unchanged and my players failed the second question. The game ground to a halt when they were attacked by, to their understanding, a lawful good god asking for help. I ended up retconning it because no one liked the idea of a lawful good god attacking the people she asked for help, especially since they were all cooperative with her and respectful of her. But it was ten minutes of "Why is a lawful good goddess attacking us, the people who she asked to help, when we answer a question wrong?"

I wouldn't have written this, but honestly I am frustrated with the fact that our issues and feedback with Iomedae keep getting misunderstood or dismissed as "not getting it" by you. We didn't get this much push back about Erastil's misogyny or Torag's genocidal paladin code. Makes it feel like our feedback isn't being taken seriously or is just worthless. It's why I've generally dropped it till now, since it was obvious that no one was going to take our criticism seriously.

No one is asking for a Disney princess paladin goddess. We just think that the idea that a good god attacking her allies when they get a question wrong is not a good thing to do, both from a story stand point and from a GM/Player relationship standpoint.

Spoiler:
Reread the second questions. It has no skill check. Rather it is based on how the party reacts to the question, rather than the answer. And if they do it too quickly, or take too long bickering, Iomedae summons her Choir to "awaken the heroes" again and blast them. And that's the issue people are having with this. The fact that a lawful good goddess summons a Choir to damage you if you don't answer her questions right isn't exactly good. I get she's supposed to be stern, but this is on the extreme of stern. It's kind of psychotic.

And that's why I don't appreciate our criticism being misrepresented and belittled with derisive comments from JJ every time it is brought up. I mean, why even give any negative feedback if we're just going to have it thrown back in our face? I don't give criticism because I have a bone to pick with Paizo, or because I hate them. Rather, when there is an issue, I want them to know that something they did is something we don't like. Whether it's with Iomedae, or Erastil, or the whole "atheists are tortured" thing, if something feels like it just doesn't work for an adventure or setting, I let it be known as reasonably as I can. But every time Part 5 of WotR is brought up, it's pretty much "we don't understand that good doesn't mean friendly". We get that, we really do. But we understand what being stern is. And what Iomedae is is an extreme version of stern. One that we feel does not represent a good deity. And I'd rather that we be met with the same dialogue that was met during the issues with Torag and Erastil, rather this almost patronizing and insulting comments about how we just "don't get it".

That's the part that disappoints me most. I had a huge respect for JJ as a GM, setting & rules designer, and all around person. But how he's treated criticism for Iomedae since Part 5 came out has really been disappointing. I genuinely liked having these dialogues about issues in the rules or settings because overall, he'd provide a reasonable dialogue to critics and fans alike. And even if I disagreed with him, there was still a respect there I had for someone taking the time out to reasonably talk about the game. Except, apparently, for Iomedae.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
AlgaeNymph wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
xavier c wrote:
5)What don't you like about Iomedae
5) She's fine, but I'm frustrated that so many people misunderstood her lawful good alignment to be the same as lawful friendly.

I think our main complaint is that you seemed to misunderstand lawful good as mean good.

Oh, right, a question! Okay... What's your reply to the above notion?

No change. There are only 9 alignments, but the number of different personalities each can have is limitless. You can have a friendly lawful good person as much as you can have a stern one. Iomedae's a stern one. And furthermore, as written in that adventure, it's only the troublemaker PCs who really see that side of her.

Actually, as written, anyone that doesn't answer her questions the way she wants gets attacked, in addition to attacking trouble makers. I ran that encounter unchanged and my players failed the second question. The game ground to a halt when they were attacked by, to their understanding, a lawful good god asking for help. I ended up retconning it because no one liked the idea of a lawful good god attacking the people she asked for help, especially since they were all cooperative with her and respectful of her. But it was ten minutes of "Why is a lawful good goddess attacking us, the people who she asked to help, when we answer a question wrong?"

I wouldn't have written this, but honestly I am frustrated with the fact that our issues and feedback with Iomedae keep getting misunderstood or dismissed as "not getting it" by you. We didn't get this much push back about Erastil's misogyny or Torag's genocidal paladin code. Makes it feel like our feedback isn't being taken seriously or is just worthless. It's why I've generally dropped it till now, since it was obvious that no one was going to take our criticism seriously.

No one is asking for a Disney princess paladin goddess. We just think that the idea that a good god attacking her allies when they get a question wrong is not a good thing to do, both from a story stand point and from a GM/Player relationship standpoint.


Erik Mona wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Better editing and quality control, now that GenCon is coming a month early.

Ha.

This is my #1 wish for the product, too, and I wrote half the outline. :)

Touche good to hear :)


Lemmy wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
I would be moved to action. When Lemmy says it, I know there is a solid reason for it (otherwise he wouldn't post it), but it's also less surprising.

I'm not sure what to take from this... In the past, I've been excited about every hardcover release. The ACG is really my only major disappointment so far (Well, there are also the Mythic rules, but I never cared for them, so they couldn't disappoint me even if they were specifically designed to do so).

I'd tell him what you think would make you feel better about the playtest.

I think on the wake of the ACG, it's hard to be excited about anything Pathfinder. But, couldn't hurt to tell him what you think it needs to get you excited.


I think it's the aftermath of ACG. It's still upon us so it's hard to be excited for a new book when a current one is still receiving negative reviews.

Still the playtest should be interesting. Thanks again for the comments Mark. I'm glad you keep on posting here on the forums for us and hope ou keep it up.


Mark Seifter wrote:
Odraude wrote:
and, unfortunately, any hype for it I hear from Mark. Sorry man, that hype train derailed and took no prisoners ;)

I wanted to address this directly. I'll be perfectly honest, as someone who was hired after the project was already at the printers, so on ACG at least, I'm a fan looking in—there are parts of the ACG that I just didn't like and wouldn't use in my games. The classes I previewed were not among those parts. I still stand by those classes now as strongly as I did the days I wrote those blogs. I'm still of the opinion that, for instance, Sean's work on the hunter from second playtest version to final is a model to me of how to make subtle changes that really benefit a class. I can get very excited about things I like, although I can also be pretty critical about things I don't like. I'm not going to be openly critical about things I don't like now that I'm a designer, since one of the best things I learned from Mike Brock while serving as a VL is that the most effective way to do things is praise publically and critique privately. But I do promise you this—if I'm worried about something, I promise you that I will not write it an unrealistic excited blog post. From a practical standpoint, I can't fake excitement, I'm just not good at it, so it would come off hollow anyway.

But actions speak louder than words, right? I'll give you guys an example of having done that in the past so you can tell that I'm shooting straight with you here. Remember my hunter blog? Since I didn't have the file that named the picture I chose (until the blog went up and I could click through or mouse over and see which one it was), I actually literally did not know which archetype was pictured there; the blog's guessing game was not all joke (I even asked people and they didn't remember since Sean had ordered the art for that spread). So now that you have the book, you see that there's another picture in that section, and it's obvious what archetype it is. It's the one on page 97 with the...

Those are fair points, but admittedly, and this is unfair to you, from here on out, it's still going to be hard to get excited for the hardcovers coming out, especially with you talking about it. Hear me out. At least from my point of view, when you got signed on, there was kind of this feeling of, idk, camaraderie, since you were a forum member before hand. Kind of like a, "Hey we got one of our own in there living the dream! Good job." So perhaps there was some unfair expectations of you from my part when I'd read your blog because you were "one of us". And with the issues of ACG (which I still contend has worse editing issues than the previous books), I kind of unfairly don't believe you any more. And I'll admit, it's s@+&ty of me, but it's a matter of "He got me super hyped and it ended up being mediocre. Better not get hyped for the next project." Which, hell, I'm sorry it's like that for me, and I'll definitely try to brush it off and not blame you. I really don't blame you, but subconsciously, it is hard to take your hype for what it is worth after the disappointment of the ACG. I want to be hyped for Occult Adventures, but in the back of my mind, it's still going "Early GenCon release! It's going to be ACG all over again!!!"

I'll endeavor in the future to simply deal with it and not blame Paizo or you for stuff that happens :)

Mark Seifter wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Course, some of this frustration is from me being unemployed again so... *shrug*

I'm sorry to hear about the unemployment. It sucks, and I know it can sometimes feel like it's tainting everything else too, and that just makes it suck more. I hope for the best for you going onward, and I hope that Pathfinder can continue to bring the awesome to make dealing with hardship more bearable, as it has for me in the past when I've been down.

Odraude wrote:

Honestly, my biggest issue with the ACG isn't even the editing problems, but the radio silence that the devs had a month after it released and these issues were given. No apologies, no assurances, nothing until Kthulhu made a topic about it. That's what bothers me. We got a blog post about something as small as the wrong title logo, but nothing about the FAQs we need with the ACG to make it functional in PFS.

I'm happy the devs were able to comment on it and reveal their insight. I do wish it was more public, but you can't win them all.

Just to let you know, it wasn't any kind of organized radio silence ordered from on high. It's not like everyone gathered around a table and discussed those posts and then placed a gag order while laughing conspiratorially underneath the sign of the Palatine Eye. It was just a matter of a convergence where eventually someone saw the question who was also exactly the right person to answer it. For instance, I had also known about many of those factors, but the book was fully finished before I was even hired; I know I'm gabby, but it would be pretty weird for me to start gabbing about that. And I'm sure moderators also saw some of those threads, but they aren't the right people to discuss it either. Sometimes it takes a little while for things to trickle up to someone with the right big picture to answer a question (it was a month for you, but it may have been just a few days for them since they saw it), so don't worry that we were intentionally trying to keep things from you guys or...

Sad part is, I'm not unemployed, since I do work at a catering company. But they haven't called me or anyone into work for two weeks, so I may as well be unemployed. That's the part that really kills me.

As for the remarks, I get that it wasn't a gag order, but there were remarks from Jason Bulhman about certain aspects and issues with the ACG within a week of release. And given how many of the devs are active on the boards, I honestly find it difficult to comprehend how it took so long for any of the higher ups to receive word about the editorial issues. And I don't know, perhaps it's a sign that maybe there is a large disconnect between the devs and player base that I never really imagined if it takes this long to get any word about these editorial issues. I'd honestly rather there have been a blog about it (like we got for the wrong title cover of the ACG) so we could have a transparent dialogue about it, rather than it being caused because someone essentially called out the devs. It leaves a bitter taste in my mouth, because I genuinely like Paizo and want to support them. But the lack of communication for the ACG, even for a valid reason, was honestly something I haven't seen before in Paizo and something I never really want to again.

From day one, you all have been transparent and approachable about aspects of the business and the roleplaying game. It's been that candidness that has won me over time and again. Which is why, in the last month, when we got little word from the devs about the editing issues, it has been a cause of great concern for me. Especially with the sheer volume of complaints. To me, it felt like a sign that the company had finally "gone corporate" and didn't really feel the need to acknowledge issues with us anymore.

Which, at the end of the day, isn't true. It was good to finally see the opinions and acknowledgement about the ACG and what happened. The topic had great insight and the candidness I've come to like about Paizo. I just wish the dialogue was sooner and more public and spurred on by more than just someone calling out Paizo.


Jiggy wrote:
Odraude wrote:
I've seen the same movie, with my girlfriend, and we both though it was a provocative film about someone in a tight spot and some of the things your mind does to cope with it.
I saw it with my wife and I thought it was Cast Away in space but a lot less interesting. I could try to examine agenda-pushing, but I'm too distracted by how they temporarily changed how space works just long enough to kill the chatty dude. :/

Fair enough. Wilson was certainly more compelling than George Clooney, I'll give you that :)

DrDeth wrote:
Guys, Gravity is not what this thread is about. Can we get back on subject, please?

Fair enough. It was really in regards to the agenda comment, but that in itself is off topic so I'll stop.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigDTBone wrote:
Papa-DRB wrote:
BigDTBone wrote:
Papa-DRB wrote:
Jessica Price wrote:
Orthos wrote:
We'll have to agree to disagree then, DMD. Nothing pisses me off and strikes me as completely wrong more than that "All art is political" tripe.
The idea that reinforcing the status quo isn't political -- that those who want to change it are acting from an agenda (and therefore, it's implied, biased, self-serving, and ideologically driven) while those who uphold it are not (and therefore objective, unselfish, and neutral) -- is generally one insisted upon by people who believe they benefit from the status quo not changing.
No, you certainly do not have to look for or experience political meaning in anything. That doesn't mean it isn't there, nor does it make others strange to find it.

If others find political meaning in it, fine with me. Just don't make me out to be a bad person according to Jessica, since I allegedly "am one who believe that they benefit from the status quo not changing".

-- david

Added bold tags to the relevant part of her quote.

Benefiting doesn't make you a bad person, but whats interesting about your example is that Avatar doesn't promote the status quo. The underlying political message is against argi-business which is very much in opposition to the status quo.

Jessica is talking about works that actually purport to offer no political view by design but do so by process. So, to me, as a straight white guy, I go to see Gravity in the theater and it's a visually interesting spectacle that offers no real political message beyond the fact the Russians need to do a better job at keeping their space stuffs maintained. But they lady I was with immediately noticed that Sandra Bullock needed the ghost of George Clooney to calm her down so she could get her bearings in the soyuz.

She was right, that is a stupid scene that perpetuates a gender stereotype of a white knight figure charging in to save the damsel in...

Actually, I'd find that as an example of finding a political agenda that may or may not necessarily there. I've seen the same movie, with my girlfriend, and we both though it was a provocative film about someone in a tight spot and some of the things your mind does to cope with it. We didn't see a white knight helping a defenseless damsel in distress, but a person in distress using a coping mechanism to get through a terrible time. If it would a man in an astronaut suit with a woman ghost helping him, I would have thought the same thing. Same if it was a black man getting help from a ghostly white dude, or reversed. This doesn't mean you're wrong, but it doesn't mean you're right. I just think people will take different things from different films, no matter what the intent of the director is.

And I can absolutely tell you that I'm not invested in perpetuating the stereotype of a weak woman being saved by a man.


Lemmy wrote:
Odraude wrote:

I liked APG and ARG too. I still think Ultimate Campaign is like the pinnacle of Paizo's publishing. Which is why I have better hopes for PU than OA. It's a book that treads new ground and isn't a GenCon release.

I think I've used about 80% of UCamp since it's release. It's really good.

Ah, when I mentioned "UC", I meant "Ultimate Combat", not Ultimate Campaign... Heh...

Honestly, I have rarely used the Ultimate Campaign... There is not much there that I can use in a game session, and when players want to retrain something, I just allow them to do it without following any of the retraining rules. IME, players usually only want to retrain a characters if its mechanics are boring and/or disappointing for whatever reason, so there's no point in forcing them to stick to characters they don't like.

That's not to say the Ultimate Campaign is a bad book, I just don't use it very often...

I love the downtime rules and use them on a constant basis. Beyond that, I've gone back and forth on different rules I use. I think the only ones I haven't used are the Honor rules and the Haggling Rules.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Artanthos wrote:
The only reason I buy PDF's is because I can no longer carry 100lbs of books to games. I greatly prefer hardcopy and wish the Paizo books were of higher quality. The last AP I purchased (WotR) already has pages falling out.
I actually dumped nearly all of my hardcopies before I got involved in PFS. Now I mostly only have the main hardcovers, but I still use my PDFs more. Having the entire library on my iPad is much better than a bag of dead tree, in my opinion.

Agreed. It was so easy moving my library compared to my girlfriend's, since I have every book I own on my Kindle.


Lemmy wrote:

Yeah... I actually feel bad criticizing Paizo's work as harshly as I've criticized the ACG, but it's hard not to.

The disappointment hurts even more considering the APG and ARG are such great books (Well... The Race Builder is really badly implemented, but the idea is pretty cool). Before the ACG, I considered UC to be the weakest Pathfinder hardcover, but even it had redeeming features and didn't co

TOZ wrote:
Odraude wrote:
I think if we got some kind of word or apology on their own about the ACG, I'd feel a lot better.

I honestly don't find an apology meaningful. I get that other people do, but it just doesn't have any effect on me.

Just like subscribers get the first, needs-errata copy of every book, the ACG errors just are. Apologizing doesn't change reality. At least not for me.

I agree with TOZ here. Apologies just don't do anything for me... That said, Paizo acknowledging the problems with the ACG at least inspires some confidence that they are aware of said problems and are honest enough to accept, instead of pretending it's not there, like they do with other (rather serious, IMHO) issues with the game.

I liked APG and ARG too. I still think Ultimate Campaign is like the pinnacle of Paizo's publishing. Which is why I have better hopes for PU than OA. It's a book that treads new ground and isn't a GenCon release.

I think I've used about 80% of UCamp since it's release. It's really good.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Da'ath wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Face it.. the only reason you and many others care about the place, is because an American discovered it. If it was yet another European discovery, there wouldn't be all the foofarah.

I'd be willing to wager it has more to do with the fact many Americans were taught in early childhood that it was a planet, and with most things, are resistant to change (particularly as we get older).

You're "average American" likely doesn't remember who discovered it or cares.

Considering there are many Europeans I've met that feel the same way, it isn't just a proud Merica thing. The fact LazarX thinks it is is very unusual.

It's all a matter of nostalgia, not nationalism. Magic School Bus and Bill Nye taught me there were nine planets and g@% d&@mit, there will always be nine planets :)


TOZ wrote:
Odraude wrote:
I think if we got some kind of word or apology on their own about the ACG, I'd feel a lot better.

I honestly don't find an apology meaningful. I get that other people do, but it just doesn't have any effect on me.

Just like subscribers get the first, needs-errata copy of every book, the ACG errors just are. Apologizing doesn't change reality. At least not for me.

For me, at least, it's an acknowledgement of failure that's important. In that way, there can be improvement in the future. The failure someone makes generally doesn't bother me. Everyone f#@*s up and nobody is perfect. It's their reaction to it that matters. An apology and acknowledgement of doing better from a company that is known for decent products and being transparent with their customers would have alleviate some peoples concerns. Not all, of course, but you can't please everyone.

To their credit, the answers they gave us were candid and overall were the transparency I've come to expect from Paizo. I'll certainly await Paizo's next hardcover. I'm not going to stop buying their other products, since the Technology Guide was awesome. But I will be more hesitant about their GenCon hardcovers and, unfortunately, any hype for it I hear from Mark. Sorry man, that hype train derailed and took no prisoners ;)

Course, some of this frustration is from me being unemployed again so... *shrug*


Orthos wrote:
If nothing else, it's a continued encouragement to stick with PDFs.

I generally do, but it's not really fair to those that prefer hardcovers. I understand that there will always be editing issues and such. But ACG was just at a really unacceptable amount of editing errors. And I feel really bad for people that spent the $40 to support Paizo, only to discover the issues inside (and outside) of the book.


Lemmy wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

I'm sure there were many reasons for the way the ACG turned out. Still, those reasons do nothing to make it a better product. At best, they might explain its flaws...

Honestly, I was worried about the ACG the moment I heard it had 10 new classes in it. In the end, 3 of them would have been better off as archetypes of existing classes (Skald and Hunter) or alternate casting rules (Arcanist).

The reasons were given to dispel the notion that A) they are working on too many things and quality is slipping and B) the idea that they do less editing for GenCon releases. With only two announced books next year, there shouldn't be the same issues we've seen in the ACG.

I know it might not look like it at times, specially recently, since I've been quite vocal about my recent disappointments with Paizo, but I'm a fan of their work.

However... It really doesn't make sense. Either the ACG was rushed and that made its quality suffer, or it editing and revision processes were as good as any other product, which means the quality is slipping, because the ACG is by far the most poorly edited hardcover book in Pathfinder.

I know not some products will be worse than others, but the issues with the ACG are not just minor mistakes (even the cover has a huge editing mistake!). It might not have had fewer revisions, but however many it got, were certainly more rushed than usual.

Personally, I believe the book was rushed. Designing classes is long and hard work, and creating 10 of them for a single book, then having to release it in time for GenCon, while also having to replace a member of the design team, prevented the devs from doing a work as good as they could have done. I'm sure they tried, but the schedule simply didn't allow it.

Odraude wrote:
Of course, I'm still very hesitant in buying future hardcovers from Paizo. I've always been an actions will speak louder than words kind of guy, no matter how candid and open the
...

Yeah I feel you. I think if we got some kind of word or apology on their own about the ACG, I'd feel a lot better. But we pretty much had to wait over a month after ACG release and then only because a topic called them out for it. And while the later apologies were great, one of the early apologies came off as essentially "Sorry that your expectations are too high." Which, in my line of work, if I said that to a customer for over cooking a meal, I'd be fired instantly. It was cleared up, but it still bothered me a bit. Considering the raving reviews I've given about previous Paizo books, I'd like to think that my standards aren't impossiblely high.

We'll have to see I guess. I have faith that Paizo will try and make things better. I just don't have faith that it'll work.


Lemmy wrote:

I'm sure there were many reasons for the way the ACG turned out. Still, those reasons do nothing to make it a better product. At best, they might explain its flaws...

Honestly, I was worried about the ACG the moment I heard it had 10 new classes in it. In the end, 3 of them would have been better off as archetypes of existing classes (Skald and Hunter) or alternate casting rules (Arcanist).

The reasons were given to dispel the notion that A) they are working on too many things and quality is slipping and B) the idea that they do less editing for GenCon releases. With only two announced books next year, there shouldn't be the same issues we've seen in the ACG. Of course, I'm still very hesitant in buying future hardcovers from Paizo. I've always been an actions will speak louder than words kind of guy, no matter how candid and open the person or people are. I'll just wait and see.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Papa-DRB wrote:
Odraude wrote:

Well, to their credit, they did discuss the issues coming into the ACG, which actually wasn't rushing the book. Between losing SKR, doing the ES Kickstarter,...

I'm happy the devs were able to comment on it and reveal their insight. I do wish it was more public, but you can't win them all.

Could you please provide a link to that thread.

-- david

It's here for your viewing pleasure.


Lemmy wrote:
Odraude wrote:
Lemmy wrote:

I dare not have high expectations for this book. Not after the ACG.

I do hope I'm proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

I'm a fan of Paizo and their products, and even I'm still worried about Pathfinder Unchained being an editing mess with mediocre options. Like I could handle some minor issues here and there, like you see with normal products. But ACG was a whole new level of poor editing and it has me worried about future releases. I understand there were a lot of factors going into it (SKR leaving and them bringing in a new guy, other stuff) but I'm still worried about Pathfinder Unchained living up to its acronym, and REALLY worried about Occult Adventures suffering from GenCon coming early. In the topic, they did explain the issues going into ACG and how it won't be there with OA, but still.... it's difficult to have faith after seeing such a blunder like ACG.

Not that it matters, since it seems as though the people that played Pathfinder at my local gaming store no longer after they got their ACG hardcopies and promptly returned it for store credit.

That's pretty much how I feel, actually.

A couple months ago, I would have been excited for the announcement of any hardcover release (other than Mythic), but after seeing how the ACG was handled and realizing how much Paizo is willing to let quality suffer in order to release something in time for GenCon, I can't help but be worried about the quality of future books, specially the ones scheduled for GenCon release.

The ACG has the dubious honor of being the only hardcover (other than Mythic rules) that I don't plan to buy. Ultimate Combat was kinda "meh", but never before had I been as disappointed with a hardcover book's quality as I'm with the ACG.

I really do hope that I'm proven wrong, though.

Well, to their credit, they did discuss the issues coming into the ACG, which actually wasn't rushing the book. Between losing SKR, doing the ES Kickstarter, and also doing the Strategy Guide in addition to the other main hard cover books really killed them. And sadly, gaming companies can live or die because of GenCon releases. So I do understand the issues coming in and that they won't be dealing with them next year (except for an earlier GenCon release). Still worried, but I'm in a "wait and see" kind of mode.

Honestly, my biggest issue with the ACG isn't even the editing problems, but the radio silence that the devs had a month after it released and these issues were given. No apologies, no assurances, nothing until Kthulhu made a topic about it. That's what bothers me. We got a blog post about something as small as the wrong title logo, but nothing about the FAQs we need with the ACG to make it functional in PFS.

I'm happy the devs were able to comment on it and reveal their insight. I do wish it was more public, but you can't win them all.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
... that's really what a lot of this thread is: some DMs hate their players and think of them as bratty, spoiled children who have to be punished and controlled (makes you wonder why they all hang out together). ...

Completely untrue as well as thoroughly and needlessly obnoxious.

I like the players and GM's in my groups or I would be in the group. I do not punish or control them. We talk about what we want to see in a campaign and all of us strive to provide that for everyone.

The majority of the group prefers nearly perfect accessibility to magic items so that is how we play. That doesn't mean I wouldn't prefer significantly less perfect accessibility, both as a player and a GM.

Your reaction to Kirth's response of "GMs punishing the players" is the same response I have when people cry entitlement for players.

No one likes assumptions being made about their play style. If players like more magic items, it may not even be because they are entitled spoiled brats. Which seems to be the idea coming from some of the GMs here. Magic items = entitlement, you can't min/max and roleplay... all bunk ideas spread by GMs that I feel have become so far disconnected from what it's like to be a player that it somehow becomes an us vs them, instead of a cooperative gaming style.

Now, if everyone wants magic to be rare and is told ahead of time, then that's awesome. Kudos to them. Despite my poor experiences with low magic settings, I'd even run a setting like that. I'd probably do a good job because I know what NOT to do with it. But this idea that players are entitled s+&~ birds that want all the magic items RIGHT NOW is as absurd as saying that all GMs that want magic to be rare are ego-fueled sadists punishing their players.


BPorter wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:

I love the classic X-Men storyline where Magneto steals Xavier's spell component pouch.

:P

Since they said upfront that it was going to be more "Penny Dreadful" and less "Professor X", what exactly are you complaining about? The former style will mesh with existing PF canon better/easier than incorporating Mary-Sue-Telepathy into the game.

Also, doesn't Dreamscarred's treatment slant more towards Sci-fi/comics - style psionics?

One of the biggest reasons they are avoiding the DSP style of psionics is that DSP already has done it, and done it really well. There's no reason to retread over ground that's been done. Spellpoint Psionics exist for those who want it, and to be fair, if Paizo did their own version (regardless of whether it's better or worse), it could be seen as the official version and people coming into the hobby would migrate to that instead of DSP. And frankly, I've always preferred a more Vancian style psychic magic out of preference (not balance), plus of late, I've been very interested in Gnosticism and spiritualism of the late 1800s/early 1900, so I'm personally happy with the direction that Occult Adventures is taking.

The fact that two styles of psionics will exist for people with different tastes is good for the game. I'm happy that DSP exists and produces good work with Psionics, and I am happy I'll get the psionics I've wanted from Paizo. I just really REALLY hope it avoids the editing pitfalls that the ACG suffered.

But this thread is about Pathfinder Unchained, not Occult Adventures, we should take this elsewhere.


Lemmy wrote:

I dare not have high expectations for this book. Not after the ACG.

I do hope I'm proven wrong, but I'm not holding my breath.

I'm a fan of Paizo and their products, and even I'm still worried about Pathfinder Unchained being an editing mess with mediocre options. Like I could handle some minor issues here and there, like you see with normal products. But ACG was a whole new level of poor editing and it has me worried about future releases. I understand there were a lot of factors going into it (SKR leaving and them bringing in a new guy, other stuff) but I'm still worried about Pathfinder Unchained living up to its acronym, and REALLY worried about Occult Adventures suffering from GenCon coming early. In the topic, they did explain the issues going into ACG and how it won't be there with OA, but still.... it's difficult to have faith after seeing such a blunder like ACG.

Not that it matters, since it seems as though the people that played Pathfinder at my local gaming store no longer after they got their ACG hardcopies and promptly returned it for store credit.


Rynjin wrote:

The ACG is the only book so far I've had problems with pretty much wholesale. I have problems with systemic issues, but most of those aren't Paizo's fault directly.

But pretty much the entire process leading up to the ACG's release was handled so poorly, the book turned out mediocre at best, and many excuses, but no apologies or so far attempts to fix issues, have been made.

Which leads back to the topic, Paizo will be able to rely on the same excuses for this book, so who's to say they're going to make a special effort this time?

As much as I like SKR, he doesn't handle playtests as well as I'd like. So with Occult Adventures playtest being the first without him, I feel that more of our concerns and critiques may be addressed, especially seeing how interactive Mark Seifer is with the community.

Not trying to insult the guy here, or start a dogpile on him.


Rynjin wrote:

That's good then. Thought it was the other way around.

Which seems odd, since IMO Pathfinder Unchained seems like a bigger release than Not-Psionics, but I won't complain.

So, one hurdle down.

No excuses on this one Paizo, it better be everything everyone ever dreamed. Or something close.

I hope it at least has an Unchained Fighter. Still can't figure out a good reason to re-do the Barbarian and not poor old Fighting Man.

The main issue is going to be it coming out and I have to rebuild my Brawler/Monk (nee Monk/Brawler Fighter/Ranger nee Master of Many Styles Monks of the Sacred Mountain nee MoMS/Drunken Master).

While there isn't a fighter unchained, they are doing a kind of maneuver thing, where you can use certain feats as more, for lack of a better term, Charles Atlas style feats of martial prowess. It requires a feat, though they've said that there will be an option where you can simply just allow the abilities without the feat, so that is cool. That's about all we know, but considering the amount of feats and the amount of fighter only feats, the fighter will be able to benefit the most from this. It sounds interesting and I'd like to see it.

I'm still worried about Occult Adventures, but the devs did actually come into a thread recently and discussed the issues with the ACG very candidly and apologize. I'd prefer the thread was more public, like a blog post, but it is a good dialogue we have in that topic.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:

I love the classic X-Men storyline where Magneto steals Xavier's spell component pouch.

:P

Still a better storyline than Magneto pretending to be a Chinese mutant child, then getting hopped up on drugs and trying to reverse the Earth's magnetic pole ;)


Pretty sure Gorbacz is my stalker. I know cause I'm stalking him. :D

Hope you get this handled AN.


Bumping this. Been out due to unemployment but I'm still interested on weekends. This week is busy due to finals, but I should be good come Saturday.


Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
This rule is just a poor attempt at "realism" that effectively invalidates whole character concepts because of what is just a cosmetic choice.
I don't ban it because realism. I borrowed enough from my favorite anime that realism isn't a thing. I ban it because I'm highly uncomfortable with it.
I assume you meant you ban young characters.

Yes. I'm putting a clearly worded ban on non-adult characters into my house rules. I take a lot of my world building inspiration from anime, and I made some rules tweaks to make combat feel a bit more anime-ish, so I do expect the issue of child characters to come up eventually. That's why I'm specifically addressing the issue with my house rules, rather than waiting for someone to try it.

Quote:
And that's okay. But if a GM doesn't want his players to play child characters, then he should just say it. There is no need to go "Oh, you can play one... But you have to suffer these heavy penalties that make your character completely useless..."
I agree with the general idea that it's better to say no than to totally cripple a hated concept, but from what I understand it is RAW in this case. Granted, I would still outright ban it, because under RAW the character would be a useless drag on the party and not fun for the player, and I outright ban other things that are RAW anyway (teleportation, resurrection, summoning).

Having run children characters, I can definitely tell you that the rules don't make them a drag on the party, especially if you actually follow them. Are they weaker? Yes. But the rules also tell you to keep that in mind when making encounters for them. Which I do. And each time, the kid players proved their worth.

Different preferences is fine. If you think that young children shouldn't have a mechanical difference, then that's cool. I think they do. Different strokes and such. But the idea that the GM is punishing the player when we know absolutely nothing about them and they aren't even here to defend themselves for their decision is idiotic and frankly, the standard tripe I've come to expect from people on this forum.


Saving that quote.


David knott 242 wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
The GM should *NEVER* enforce the child characters rules. They render the young character completely useless. Any child character concept should either be blocked completely or allowed to use the normal rules (with or without the young template). There is no concept for which forcing an NPC class on a character is beneficial.

Those rules work fairly well in a campaign where ALL of the player characters are children who either never mature during the course of the campaign or all mature at roughtly the same time.

I suppose they could also be made to work in a balanced manner if the child characters get a level advantage to balance out their overall weaknesses -- but that does strike me as a bit counterintuitive.

There is a 3rd party product with traits that let child characters take levels in PC classes, so I suppose one approach could be to let young player characters do that at the cost of one trait.

You can do a mix, but even Ultimate Campaign suggests that the GM watches the encounters they throw at the party. Which is what I do, and things are honestly fine. I've allowed Children with NPC levels, children with Apprentice levels (using RGG book on it), and children with PC levels. And for each one, it was fine. But like the GM in question, I generally work with my players with the ruleset and compromise so that everyone has fun. Hell, I let a player play an awakened bear cleric in my last game. use the rules to be passive aggressive and punish any player that plays a concept I don't agree with. Cause I'm clearly an evil person with massive insecurities that I have to take out on my players to give myself some pathetic ego boost.


Like with all things, I take the answer in the middle. I don't have magic marts everywhere, but I compromise and give the players the rewards they want, or sometimes the rewards they don't realize they want. A friend playing an awakened bear cleric was happy when he got a temple to his god that he could have. Never wanted it, never asked for it, but man, he was psyched to get his paws on that temple.

With shopping or crafting, I generally handwave it unless there is an adventure to be had for it. Roleplaying your first time in a certain shop is fun. Doing it each and every time would get tiresome. But I always choose fun over verisimilitude given the option.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I love how people assume the GM is being a passive aggressive douche and not just finding the rules and allowing the player to play it according to the rules. Especially without the actual GM here in question to explain their side of the story.

Always staying classy here at Paizo I see.

Personally, I like the Young Characters rules, but generally allow players to be PC classes. It's honestly been fine and I have not had terrible issues with my games with it. Honestly the penalties aren't even that bad.

But please, continuing bashing the GM. Clearly they must be a terrible person with evil intentions bent on controlling the PCs for their own amusement. Clearly, without knowing the person or hearing their side, they must be bad and punishing the player.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The "entitlement" predates 3.0. It was the same way in 2nd edition and, according to my dad, the same way back in his day. Only difference is that WPL is more codified into 3.X games. Though it isn't hard to work around honestly.

Course, is it the player that is entitled because they want rewards, or the GM that is entitled for wanting less magic? ;)


Kirth Gersen wrote:

In D&D, money is only a means to an end. The way the rules are set up, you can't spend that loot on castles, or on hookers and blow, or whatever without hamstringing yourself as an adventurer. This is most especially true of martial guys, because in D&D Land, magic is really the only way to get a lot of things done, once you reach mid-level or so. That means, if you're not casting spells yourself, you need items just to keep up. And getting those items requires gp. That's just the way the game is set up. You can alter or mitigate that by a variety of means, but what you can't do is just ignore it and expect everything to work out.

Elric didn't want Stormbringer, but when the adventure involves destroying demons and even minor gods, he needed it, because there's no way for you to fight those kind of things with a normal blade.

When Luke is getting shot at by a dozen blasters, he needs that lightsaber to deflect them, or he ends up riddled in holes. So when he can, he constructs a new lightsaber with his (off-screen) loot from previous adventures.

Conan can get away with squandering all his wealth on debauchery, and Robin Hood can give his spoils to the poor, because those guys stay in an E6-type framework. They simply don't ever go up against things that require better armaments, and there's no expectation that they ever will.

Well, I generally allow my players to and just make up for it with more money. Also, crafting does open up more money for my players to spend money on castles and forts ad such. Admittedly, that is GM fiat but I don't mind it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
Ummmm... what does any of that have to do with the characters being motivated solely by financial reward, as stated in the post I quoted and responded to?
That's not what was stated. They were motivated by survival.
Quote:
Because risking our lives for no money wasn't worth it and wasn't fun.
Perhaps not solely, but money seems to have been a big part of it.

Lack of meaningful progress was the largest issue. We were playing soldiers in an Imperial army and for eight levels, never got to see any progress. No rewards, no promotions, no people for us to command. Just a "fight the good fight, you scumbags" and a pat on the back for our troubles.


Glewistee wrote:
Odraude wrote:

Just a minor quip, Zemi/Cemi are actually Caribbean in nature, from the native Taino there. I actually have them statted up as outsiders. Once I finish them, I'll post them.

Otherwise, great list.

Hey guys, been lurking here for a bit and love the thread.

Odraude, I was listening to the Know Direction Podcast's GENCON coverage, and the Devs mention you and your work in one of the panels. It's in the "Diversity in Gaming" panel, somewhere in the last 2 minuets. It's really quick and in passing, but these are some of the big guns at Paizo, and I thought it was kind of cool.

Oh snap. I'll have to listen to that.

I've been dormant recently. School + looking for employment (again) has kept me from this thread. Hoping to get some writing in come the weekend.

Just listened to it. I guess i had better get back on and finish my setting now :p


Orthos wrote:

I just don't see why "I want to tell a story" can't be reason enough, as it's always been enough for me personally.

I guess I need someone to explain it to me. Because while I don't deny there are stories that are written with the purpose of "here's my opinion on this subject, set in the context of fiction", those aren't the sort of things I tend to read - I'm more a fan of the books that start with the premise of "wouldn't it be cool if X happened? Let's extrapolate from there".

I obviously can't refute the idea that SOME stories are written with that in mind, but the idea that ALL fiction is written for the purpose of axegrinding is so alien to me as to be unfathomable, so maybe someone just needs to put it in language I can comprehend. Maybe I need to list out some books/book series I enjoy and have someone tell me what the axes are being ground in them, because I can't see them for some reason.

Or maybe my definition of axegrinding is just more specific than some of yours, and thus many books I read just don't qualify by my definition but they do by yours?

Like I said, one person's story-telling is another person's agenda pushing. If, for an NPC's background I wrote:

"Gary owns an inn, where he serves cool beer to patrons while his husband entertains them by playing the piano."

Some would say that is agenda pushing, while others wouldn't. I find that it reflects more on the person and less on the book. If you're always looking for agenda pushing, you're going to find it.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Wiggz wrote:
Odraude wrote:

I remember playing in a game where we were all 8th level and the GM was trying to go for the no Magic Marts-Magic is special route. After doing a long dungeon that culimanted with a battle between us and some golems and a purple worm, all we got for our troubles were.... a silver masterwork dagger, some coins (about 100 gp) and some silver horseshoes. Oh and a "Good Job" from our commander (we were employed by the army).

Next session, we all levelled. So we all took leadership, got some followers, and said that we were retiring from the adventurer life and buying farmland to live our days. Because risking our lives for no money wasn't worth it and wasn't fun.

Thank goodness Luke Skywalker, Indiana Jones, Frodo and Bilbo Baggins, Robin Hood and pretty much every great character from fiction didn't feel that way, eh?

As I recall, Frodo really didn't want anything to do with the ring. But we was pretty much pressured into it. And didn't Robin Hood end up marrying the noble woman and getting rewarded at the end? In fact generally, most heroes in fiction get rewarded in some fashion at the end of the story. And of course there are examples of heroes who continue to fight the good fight with no progress and get weary of it. Of course, I prefer my heroes more like Conan and The Gray Mouser than Superman and Gandalf anyways so...

And you're making the same mistake that a lot of GMs make when they want to make magic items rare and unique and special snowflakes. You are thinking of the game world as a novel, in a vaccuum without the PCs in consideration. There are things that work great in novels that don't translate well into games. Granted, giving PCs great stories to latch onto and become invested in is awesome and a great thing to do. But ultimately, this is a game. And in a game, the average player likes to do cool things with their character and their character's story. The PCs will like your world and your NPCs, but ultimately want to build up their PC's story, notoriety, and legend. Because to them, it's a game. A fun one. One that combines the immersion of books with the interaction of video games. They want to make their mark on the world and make their character awesome.

In general, PCs like to see progress. Progress is, of course, an open-ended term. It could be anything, and thanks to Ultimate Campaign , there are rules for more than just magic items, levels, and money. Farmland, a bar, a temple, a fort, followers.... these are all great for progress, get PCs invested in your story world, and you have potential story hooks for your players. But if your players see no progress, then after awhile, some may just not have fun with gaming. I know if I play a game that's the same thing over again with nothing to show for it at the end, I eventually get bored. That's what I see in the "make magic special" crowd. Usually a "red flag" (so to speak) to a larger issue of building and running a world without the PCs' consideration of it. That's admittedly based on my own anecdotal evidence of playing in games where GMs wanted magic items to be rare and special.

Now, if your players are cool with no rewards and doing good for good's sake, then by all means, go for it. Different strokes and such. But I'm talking in general, and from what I've encountered of GMs and PCs.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Orthos wrote:
Quote:
Paizo sells fiction. There is no such thing as fiction that does not have a social agenda of some sort.
Eh, on this we'll have to disagree. I've read plenty of books whose only "agenda" was to tell an entertaining story, with no intent nor result to challenge any perceptions or status-quo. Doesn't make them any less entertaining IMO. So I can't say I agree with the idea that all fiction has an agenda, social or otherwise, beyond telling a tale.

Spoiler:

Either way, what's one person's backstory is another person's agenda pushing. I didn't find any of the LGBT NPCs to be agenda pushing and felt that their romance backstories are no different than, say, Ameiko's about her dead boyfriend.

It's all backstory that rounds out the characters. Why do we need to know that Shalelu has an estranged step-father? Why do we need to know that Ameiko's dad is a huge douche? Why do we need to know that Koya has always wanted to travel and leave Varisia? for all the same reason. Backstory. At the end of the day, it's all unimportant. But it makes the characters relatable and more real than saying "This is Hass Delgado, the elven blacksmith that's only here to craft your items.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

I remember playing in a game where we were all 8th level and the GM was trying to go for the no Magic Marts-Magic is special route. After doing a long dungeon that culimanted with a battle between us and some golems and a purple worm, all we got for our troubles were.... a silver masterwork dagger, some coins (about 100 gp) and some silver horseshoes. Oh and a "Good Job" from our commander (we were employed by the army).

Next session, we all levelled. So we all took leadership, got some followers, and said that we were retiring from the adventurer life and buying farmland to live our days. Because risking our lives for no money wasn't worth it and wasn't fun.


Kelsey Arwen MacAilbert wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
Drogon wrote:
I can't get behind the idea that the reason is because you hired too many people.

This won't be a popular response, but perhaps if the very clear priority of keeping the LGBT flag waving wasn't quite so front and center, if the social engineering and universal representation were left to the players and GM's themselves, the focus on these many other issues presented might be greater.

We can't get answers to any of dozens of questions in the FAQ, have classes coming out after months of playtests which immediately need tons of errata and the much-heralded Mythic ruleset is broken pretty much as soon as you get into the meat of it... but hey, we all know EXACTLY how much a sex-change potion will cost!

I find your choice of topic interesting. You see, creating an LGBT character doesn't really take any more effort that creating a heterosexual character. I have never seen anyone claim it does. Writing up a potion? About ten minutes. It's not a significant time expenditure at all. So, I am left with the impression that you have an issue that goes beyond the overall editing and rules quality of Paizo products. The use of the phrase "social engineering" is even more telling. I have never seen that phrase used by somebody who isn't bigoted against some other group.

Quote:
I'm not saying the two are related, but in earlier pathfinder materials, the focus wasn't so great, the constant LGBT banner wasn't so zealously waved and many of these issues weren't near so pronounced either.
If I remember correctly, homosexual characters in Paizo APs predate Pathfinder.
Quote:
Can we skip the social agenda,
Paizo sells fiction. There is no such thing as fiction that does not have a social agenda of some sort.
Quote:
cut the rules bloat and just get back to what Paizo has always been best at - telling great stories through gaming?
You can ban anything you consider bloat at your table.

I thought it was funny that she posts about how she wants to live in a world where nobody cares if there is an LGBT character (assuming because it is just accepted at that point), but then complains where there are *gasp* two couples in one AP. I just assumed she'd shrug and say "Oh, two LGBT couples? No big deal."

Sounds less of a problem with Paizo and more of a problem with a person.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wraithstrike wrote:
Kydeem de'Morcaine wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:
Mark Hoover wrote:
For folks that say magic items = rare and precious why not just houserule: no magic items can be bought, period? I'm not being snarky it's an honest question. Sure there are still crafting feats out there and everyone's free to craft on their own but literally no one in the entire game world will sell them, not even the consumables. The only way magic items then change hands are by gift or force. ...
I actually asked about that in a topic, and making them harder to get did not make them more special. ...

I have known a couple of GM's that do that. It actually was not a horrible game. Of course after a few levels everyone was building up a basement stock of +1 value items that were no longer of use.

But in my personal opinion that is too far on the other end of the spectrum. Both the Magic Mart anything-conceivable-is-always-in-stock and the opposite of nothing-is-ever-sold are both about evenly implausible.

I used to do the "you can buy everything" market also, but the book's 75% and cities with spending limits is a better way. I do however allow for items to be commissioned but sometimes that means the players have to continue the mission and come back later to pick it up.

I generally do this as well. My players have honestly always prefer making their magic items instead of buying them. We love that customization and naming it. We don't care about, say, Sir Archibald's rapier that we find, but love the swords and stuff we create and name. Because ultimately, we are building our own legend, not so much living in the shadow of another.

The magic mart is primarily a GM problem. I rarely see players complain and have found that more often than not, you'll never make magic feel special. Fantasy is too mainstream right now, with video games and movies and books flooding the market. Generally, people of the current generation aren't going to really be wow'd by magic if you just take it away from them and make it rare. Trust me, making a bunch of 8th level adventurers beg for a +1 dagger isn't very fun.

Course, this doesn't mean I have Magi-Mart Superstores everywhere. I generally have magic items available to buy from collectors, or have items the players craft. And if there is a magic mart, I generally do cool stuff with it. Like, I once had a dimensional-floating magic mart with a mummy oracle in it that would sell items to the players. They could summon him with a special feather token that would allow any door in a city to turn into an entrance into his store. And they ended up doing some cool planar adventures with him, since he had a sarcophagus that was pretty much a TARDIS. So I don't get lazy and just remove magic marts. I make them spare, but I also make them fun and engaging for the players. Pretty much everything I do ends up being a story hook for the players.

And one thing I've noticed with the current generation of gamers is that story and making magic cool is all about engaging both their mechanical side and their roleplaying side. If you just talk about Sir Archibald's rapier, most people will shrug it off. Especially if they don't use rapiers. But if you give them a quest where they learn about him, maybe because they need his weapon, and even tailor it to one of the party member's weapons, you'll find your players much more immersed in your world and enjoying magic for more than just numbers and bonuses.


Cthulhudrew wrote:
Odraude wrote:
True, but then where do fairy circles and world fairs fit in? How do they fit in with mind magic? Not to rain all over the parade of the wishlist here, but I'm not quite grasping the relation.

Well, it remains to be seen yet precisely what "Occult Magic" is, but it isn't necessarily one and the same with "mind magic."

At this point, about all we know for sure is that some of it will involve utilizing/accessing/manipulating/? the Ethereal plane, and possibly the Astra as well.

Fair enough. From what I'm understanding, they are taking a lot from esoteric magics. Things like chakra and The Seven Rays and, I'd imagine, Gnosistism. So more magic of the soul, rather than of the mind.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
JohnF wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
91 is the year before i met my wife:) i turned 15 that year

In '91 my wife and I celebrated our 13th wedding anniversary ...

I was four and wetting the bed being a regular bad ass!


Also consider me someone that is a fan of psionics, but not a fan of the spell point system. Not out of balance, but out of preference. I prefer Vancian and I've wanted a Vancian form of psionics for a long time. And 15 years hasn't shown that Vancian magic is unbalanced, rather the spells themselves need work. The concept of spell slots isn't inherently unbalanced, nor do I consider it "not real magic".


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Erik Mona wrote:

I'm sorry you had such a negative experience with the book, Dragon. While I don't agree with the premise of this thread in general, it is true that last year had a couple of significant challenges that may have contributed to some of the problems you cite.

Many of those factors (losing a core member of the design team, developing a bonus hardcover superadventure to support a huge Kickstarter campaign, and developing a book as visually complex and ambitious as the Strategy Guide) are not likely to occur in 2015, so I am personally optimistic about the future.

I am working on Occult Adventures (next year's Gen Con release) as a freelancer, and have had lots of opportunity to participate in the overall conception of the book. I've also worked closely with each member of the design team, all of whom have been uniformly terrific and on-point in every discussion I've had with them.

That book is going to be fantastic.

If we fell short of your expectations with the Advanced Class Guide, I'm confident that the books coming up will regain some of that faith you have lost. I have a lot of faith in them, and in those yet to come.

Erik,

I have full faith that Occult Adventures is going to rock, for the same reason I suspect that the ACG missed a lot of marks.

When I interviewed you at PAX last year, I saw the excitement in your eyes when you talked about a type of occult psychic magic as a possible future endeavor for Paizo, and the possibilities that you guys might explore there. You mentioned how other members of the staff were also very interested in the idea, and since you've announced Occult Adventures we've heard from other people brought on to the project and that same ecitement can be seen universally. It's that love.

I think even if the blatant editing errors were not present in the ACG there's still be a higher than normal dissatisfaction with it, and I think that can be traced back to the very idea behind the book, the concept of hybrid classes. The idea...

I actually disagree with this. A lot of what I've seen, including my own thoughts, actually like the idea of the hybrid classes and it doesn't feel lazy to us. It's just the editing was done poorly.


True, but then where do fairy circles and world fairs fit in? How do they fit in with mind magic? Not to rain all over the parade of the wishlist here, but I'm not quite grasping the relation.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I appreciate the dev comments. I understand that errors happen and nobody should expect absolute perfection. My biggest problem was (until now) little public dev comments about the editorial issues. No blog posts and little word for a month after the ACG. That's really what I wanted. Just a blog or thread that has what Lisa and Erik typed for the consumers to see, perhaps condensed down. It really helps put our nerves at ease and lets us know that you're reading our concerns. The comments here have put me at ease and while I wish this was more public for ease of finding, I'm very happy that the devs have come out to address these issues with us. Thanks for the responses.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Erik Mona wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:


I can only speak for my experiences, but after reading the ACG I was so dissapointed I looked into more 3PP that could act as a new source of content for myself and my group and alternate systems such as DnD 5E, Rogue Trader, Numenera, Monster Hunter International, and Dark Heresy 2E

I'm sorry you had such a negative experience with the book, Dragon. While I don't agree with the premise of this thread in general, it is true that last year had a couple of significant challenges that may have contributed to some of the problems you cite.

Many of those factors (losing a core member of the design team, developing a bonus hardcover superadventure to support a huge Kickstarter campaign, and developing a book as visually complex and ambitious as the Strategy Guide) are not likely to occur in 2015, so I am personally optimistic about the future.

I am working on Occult Adventures (next year's Gen Con release) as a freelancer, and have had lots of opportunity to participate in the overall conception of the book. I've also worked closely with each member of the design team, all of whom have been uniformly terrific and on-point in every discussion I've had with them.

That book is going to be fantastic.

If we fell short of your expectations with the Advanced Class Guide, I'm confident that the books coming up will regain some of that faith you have lost. I have a lot of faith in them, and in those yet to come.

Honestly if this had been a blog post, some critics would be a lot less worried about Paizo. But the only blog we got was about the misprjnted title. When a company stays quiet about a mistake, it makes us wonder what they are doing, or if they even care. I'm glad to finally see devs weigh in on the product, but it has been a month since the ACG release. In that time, ive already seen people return their hard copies and jump ship to 5th ed or other RPGs. And when someone asks me if they should get the hardcover, i can't lie to them about its issues. It's hard to defend Paizo when, at least up until now, there weren't any public, formal statements about the ACG. So I'm glad we finally got word about this, but I really wish it was sooner and more readily available to the public.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
James Jacobs wrote:
Odraude wrote:

Figured I'd ask here since the devs are looking at this one.

I've asked this before, but no one ever answered it. The one thing I have on my mind is, with GenCon coming earlier, and the ACG being what it is because of rushing, is anything going to be looked at so that Occult Adventures doesn't suffer similar issues? I like Paizo, but I don't want to buy a hardcover that will have the same (or more) editing errors that the ACG had. The ACG may have been a singular drop in quality, but it is one that has the chance of repeating itself again next year. And I've been waiting for psionics to come out, so I am a lot more invested in Occult Adventures than the ACG.

So what can we expect from Occult Adventures and avoiding the same editing issues that plague the ACG? Is GenCon coming early being looked at as a potential issue?

Yes. We are absolutely doing things to try to let us do a better job on Occult Adventures.

Thanks for letting me know. I appreciate the time you guys take talking with us. :)

1 to 50 of 6,352 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.