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

Steve Geddes's page

Goblin Squad Member. Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber. 6,425 posts (7,393 including aliases). 12 reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 7 aliases.


1 to 50 of 677 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

Intriguing typo in the title..


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Stephen Radney-MacFarland wrote:
This is not quite accurate. Sean was the mouth of the message boards for a long time, so it was him out defending some decisions that were made by the Design Team.

I really wish this was more widely appreciated. Being the most visible defender of a group decision doesn't mean you're responsible for the decision.

Since I joined the paizo community, it seems to me there has been a decline in engagement of the sort we're discussing*. It's hard not to think that the "shoot the messenger" approach often taken with Sean has been responsible for that.

*:
quite possibly an inaccurate perception


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Malwing wrote:
Although I have to say that I don't quite understand what the problem is.

Yeah, me neither.

Creative output is a valuable thing and allowing others to use any of your work for minimal cost is generous, in my opinion. I don't share the view that because some companies are very permissive it therefore follows that "predominantly OGL" should be the norm.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Ashiel wrote:
That's a fault of the class, not the stat generation. <_<

Perhaps. Alternatively, given the classes are unbalanced, using a pointbuy method isnt fair. *shrug* I dont think either is necessarily more foundational.

I dont really care (I dont think it's about fairness, balance or anything else, I think everyone should just do whatever the hell they like). I was just explaining the point of the analogy as I saw it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Arachnofiend wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:

People still think point-buy is "totally fair": one last try.

You and Bob have the same job qualifications and experience.
I pay you $70,000/year.
I pay Bob $70,000/year.

What could be more fair?

Never mind that we're putting Bob's payment in the form of stock options in a sheltered offshore account and the company CPA (not me!) provides him with some legal loopholes so that he doesn't have to pay taxes on it. The company also provides him with a house and a car, but HR handles that part, so it has absolutely nothing to do with me (wink, wink). HR has also managed to get him free health insurance, even though you have to pay full price for yours. You pay full federal, state, and local taxes and don't get a house or car.

And, to your mind, this is "the very definition of fair."
As I alluded, Ayn Rand would probably agree with you, but I don't.

I'm... afraid I don't really follow this comparison? To me, it sounds more like you're rolling but then you're letting your best friend fudge the rolls. Which would be terrible and I'm working under the assumption that nobody here is doing that.

You can't cheat point-buy. Everyone has the same amount of points to spend. The balance issues are really just because you have casters who can put everything in one stat. That's a problem with the game design, not the point buy.

I think his point was that saying "Everyone has the same number of points to spend, therefore it's fair" is like saying "Everyone has the same salary, therefore it's fair" when, in fact, there are many more elements of character generation (working conditions) than just attributes (salary) which determine how "well off" you are.

You and Bob havent been treated fairly despite having the same salary. The guy who always plays a monk and the wizard-phile havent been treated fairly despite having the same number of points to buy their attributes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I think it shows that things are working as intended - Paizo are retaining relatively tight creative control over Golarion whilst being much more free with the rules.

I think they want to have a clear distinction between "official" Golarion stuff and unofficial-stuff-you've-decided-to-import. Possibly there's legal reasons, but there's no doubt an element of not wanting to let the cat out of the bag - many 3PPs are great, but if you allow a free-for-all there will be some lousy product and it will be irrevocably tied to your brand (witness the complaints that still roll by regularly about how the 3PP glut and low quality "ruined" 3.5 - no matter how many good, professional publishers existed).

I think your solution is best frankly. If you want to produce stuff for Golarion you need to maintain a certain distance - if that's not making you happy you shouldnt do it. A focus on your own IP, a more open IP from some other company or on the less restrictive game mechanics is probably best for you. Those 3PP who do want to make pseudo-Golarion products to ride the popularity of Paizo's IP will have to pay a certain cost (ie nebulous branding and frustrating questions) to do so.

I dont really see the argument that, because many 3PP would like to produce Golarion content and because there's room for it without Paizo harming their ability to release content, Paizo should therefore allow it. (Is that a fair summary of your position?)

The fact is that (relatively) tight control of Paizo's IP is a risk-mitigation strategy - by keeping a clear defining line between Golarion content and things 3PP put out which are "compatible" with Golarion, there's no risk that you'll produce something south-of-Geb six months before Paizo release competing material. There's also no risk that some startup, inexperienced company might put out rubbish which may well serve to devalue the Golarion brand. I dont think this last is a significant risk with the well-known 3PPs, but I think the risk is definitely there and once it's allowed it seems hard to roll back.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
loaba wrote:
If we want to ask sub-questions, then riddle me this; why is a randomly generated 8 better than a point-buy 8? I get the feeling the random rollers feel like their 8 is some kind of badge of honor, while those same Randomites look down on the P-B'er and his 8 (and probable 18).

Its not about better, its about whats enjoyable. Theres no badge of honor, I just enjoy being given a character and making it work (I dont reroll, as a general rule).

FWIW, my preference is 3d6, in order, reroll at the player's option. I dont "look down" on people who prefer point-buy though - I think they should be allowed to do that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I'm quite disappointed in the drop in number of figures per release. Sad to see what I consider a step back.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I don't really disagree that a kickstarter is a serious undertaking and commitment. I seem to recall that the completion date is explicitly called out as an estimate in kickstarters terms/FAQ though, as opposed to being a term of the contract between the creator and backers.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I just put it down to reigonal differences in spelling.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

Oooo! With all due guilty feelings - nice find.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:


Which ttrpg companies don't eventually write new editions, or go under before they can?

The most successful one is still doing fine on its first edition.

Perhaps, but Paizo has made more substantial changes to its system in five years via "errata" between different printings than Chaosium has made in over 30 years across six editions of Call of Cthulhu.

Yeah, and it's working well for them. That's my point. They're doing it differently than WotC did it, they're doing it differently than Chaosium did it. It's working and although I suspect that they'll eventually decide to do something different, I dont see any argument for inevitibility.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
memorax wrote:

I would be very surprised if in a new or slightly updated edition there will be no reprints. They reprinted stuff like VOP and other rules from 3.5. Not entire books yet they did. Again it needs to be repeated Paizo is and never was a non-profit organization. They created the company to work on a product they enjoy as well as to make a profit off it. No one at least the smart entrepreneurs start a company without the intention of it making money at some point.

I don't understand the logic. Paizo can release either a new edition or a slighlty tweaked one. Yet they can't do anything new or innovative or different that envolves anyone spending a single extra penny. Or thy threathen a boycott. So Paizo has to invest time in playtesting, printing and paying employees etc. Yet they can't be expected to profit from it. That's crazy and insane. One might as well ask the Paizo employees to work for free. I'm sure their starving families and piles of bills that add up will thank you for it.

I dont want a new edition, but I definitely want Paizo to remain profitable as they continue to expand Golarion and develop the Pathfinder system/brand.

I reject the implicit assumption that, without producing a new edition, Paizo will not remain profitable into the future. The only argument I've seen as to why "A new edition is inevitable" have been from people pointing to other companies who don't have that model.

Paizo have built their business on supplements/adventures as the main profit driver rather than the ruleset. They've clearly made a conscious choice to limit the production of rules supplements (three hardbacks a year and I'd argue that Bestiaries and NPC Codices are a different kind of thing than a true rule book).

In my mind, the real soon-to-be current threat to that business model is D&D:Next. I think Paizo have clearly won the majority share of players from the 3.5 era. Going forward though, as those players drop off the scene, maybe D&D:Next will be successful at capturing the new fans and the balance of games being played might shift. If that happened, I could see a PF2 as a necessary response (being the most popular game is a good way to ensure that selling supplements and adventures is a profitable way forward. If that popularity were challenged over a long period of time, it might become less so).

My hope and expectation is that both systems are successful. Nonetheless, I think it's a risk.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I know there were a couple of issues with the GSL that made it untenable to Paizo (and reading between the lines, I think 4E wasnt the kind of game they were interested in).

I dont think you had to pay to "look at the license info" though. Where did you hear that?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

Privately would be my suggestion. Also (and this is based purely on your comment that you need to work on being diplomatic) I'd approach it from a "that's not how I'd do it" rather than "did you know you're doing it wrong?" perspective.

The reason I'd do that is that it's possible you and he are at different ends of the spectrum when it comes to the book being rules or being guidelines. I've seen someone say "I want to play this game exactly by the rules" but then rely heavily on the 'rule' that says the DM is the arbiter of the rules - it may be that he and/or the rest of the group dont really care about following RAW so much as RAIbytheDM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
DrDeth wrote:
And, really, the KIA rate in AD&D was not much higher than in PF. Yes, there were a few save or die spells, etc. Still are.

This has been one of the big surprises of this thread. In my experience an absolutely defining element of gaming "back then" was the fragility of low-level characters. "Save vs poison or die" was a common phrase in the modules we ran - predominantly low level ones, meaning a less than 50% survival rate.

I'm really surprised to hear people say that they died just as much in AD&D as they do in Pathfinder. We generally die once we reach sixth-eighth level in pathfinder, but it's because we dont optimise very well and just play modules as written (so at that level it's only a matter of time until we run into something pretty much immune to our attacks). It's pretty rare for us to die pre-fifth level though whereas reaching 5th level in AD&D was a rare achievement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

Could I suggest the maps be in a separate booklet, rather than in the back half of the book? I liked the inclusion of the map compilation at the end of ST but would have found it much more useful if I could have that open separately with the main book open to the descriptive stuff.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:
You want an upgraded fighter/rogue? Why not have a book with an updated fighter and rogue along with new feats/archetypes/ect that doesn't require a new core rulebook.

Whilst I'm not a fan of a new PF edition, I think this would be problematic.

If there's a "new improved rogue" in book A, options for that new-rogue in book B and a rogue in the core book, it's going to get confusing for newcomers. They buy the core book and book B yet can't work out how the rogue options apply.

You can't really fix problems in the core book without redoing the core book.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Honestly I kinda like 4e. If there was a greater roleplaying emphasis and not a need to buy every damn thing and have a subscription to the dang character builder I'd play it more.
I already play 4e without having bought nearly every book and without DDI or its character builder -- honestly, where do these ideas come from? -- so I'd buy the crap out of a Paizo 4e clone!

Maybe I misunderstood, but why would you buy the crap out of a paizo clone of 4E but not the actual 4E books and/or DDI?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

When you say "our subscription offerings" any idea on when they'll be available? I feel like I'm missing out on something, even though I've already got my copy of issue #1. :o


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:

What is so wrong with the game we have now that yoy want to destroy it right away for something new?

What makes you think that PF 2.0 is going to fix everything I or any other person dislikes about the game without destroying what I or any other person likes?

No, the new edition isn't announced yet but those of us who do not WANT a new edition need to make our voices heard because the chatter on these message boards makes it out that the game is absolutely awful and that they could not get a new edition out soon enough-- which could not be further from the truth.

If a new edition came out in the next few years, tbph-- I wouldn't even crack open the cover in a store or look at the PRD for several years at least.

Then the first change I don't like that I saw, I'd put it down and not look at it again for another few years. . .

Most like I would skip the edition entirely. So the second they announce PF 2.0, you can count me out of buying ANYTHING published by Paizo for at least 25 or so years. . . maybe I will come back in 2050 for PF 4.0, but I'm not giving a company that keeps riding the edition rollercoaster my support.

So far I believe paizo when they say they don't plan to do that, but I get tired of hearing the clamoring to be taken advantage of and people who actually WANT this company to treat them like disposable cash machines instead of valued customers.

I dont think there's anything wrong with arguing for no new edition if that's what you want (what else are you supposed to argue for). Those who do want a new edition should keep clamouring for it and poor Paizo have to work out what's the best course of action.

Having said that, I'm curious why you dont have a problem supporting Paizo now (who updated 3.5 and essentially "rode the edition rollercoaster") but wouldnt if they switched to supporting PF 2.0? Is it just that one edition update per company is okay but a second is a bridge too far? (ie Wotc releasing 3.0 and then 3.5 was acceptable but 4th edition was too much. Paizo updating 3.5 to Pathfinder was reasonable but PF2 is less so).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

The issue of multiple or everchanging groups is a strong argument in favor of using more complete, objective rule systems, in my opinion (I've basically been playing with the same people for thirty years, so it's a nonissue for us). I suspect that would help reduce the incidence of mismatched expectations.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

It seems to me that the real distinguishing feature between the way "new" games are intended to be played and the way "older" ones are is the concept of RAW - an oldschool flavored game is going to pretty much deny the relevance of RAW. Even the earliest games acknowledged there were gaps in the rules, happily breezing past that with the assumption that this would be solved by the DM. The more modern style is going to favor the certainty and "fair playing field" approach that clear and complete rules give - everyone goes in knowing what's what and how things will progress.

I find that every game I play is "like AD&D" whether that be one of the OSRIC games, Pathfinder, 4E, GURPS, Rolemaster or the others we've tried. In my view the feel of a game is really more about the approach of the players than the way the rules are written. We treat everything in the book as guidelines or suggestions for how to handle things. Sometimes we'll go with a rule we think is silly, other times we'll change it (and sometimes we'll have an inconsistent approach).

When something comes up in game, the DM may well invent a subsystem on the spot to resolve climbing a wall or may flick to the relevant section (which we havent read very well) and misapply what's written there.

Given our style, the older systems fit a little better (since they implicitly assume you're going to make stuff up to fill the gaps) but I dont find it difficult to run a 4E/PF game using the same approach - there's just times where our resolution is very different from what the rules suggest, but we treat rule zero as capitalised, underlined, bolded and in much larger font.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Quote:
What Do You Hope to See in PF 2e?
Nice players that are fun to be around.

Hippy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
F. Wesley Schneider wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Hi wes. I probably asked you about this before, but there's been a flurry of similar requests recently so I thought I'd ask again in the hope momentum was building..

Any chance for a devils revisited in a year or two? Is spare time really that important?

DAMN YOU JACKALS! CAN'T THERE BE A MOMENT'S PEACE!?!?

Well it would take me a while for me to read Devils Revisited. So writing that should give you some respite for a while, at least. *inno*


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Nathanael Love wrote:
But the turn around between 3.0 and 3.5 frustrated me and the groups I was playing in just as much as 4.0 tbh-- I personnaly skipped 3.0 and used others books so I bought 3.5 so they didn't have to, but having just bought 3 core books + splat books for classes to in 5 years or less have 3 core books + new )albeit hardcover) splatbooks featuring some of the same content again is just a frustrating cycle/business model.

Was the transition between 3.5 and PF okay for you?

I don't really understand the difference in happily upgrading from 3.5 to PF but being unhappy to upgrade to PF:Next.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Jack Assery wrote:
Lol, I tried but am still trying to figure out how to get the quotes working right.

You want "/quote" in place of "end quote"


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

Faster combats.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

Nice one Skeeter. Even more RA stuff! Thanks. :)

(When it comes to kickstarters, late doesnt matter in my view. It's late and silent that's the big sin).


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

There are many different ways to play, of course. I think the only time it gets heated is when people query how other people can possibly be having fun.

I'm very much on the rules-schmules end of the spectrum. I dont understand the rules particularly well, I like imbalance between the classes, prefer magic options to be better than mundane solutions, dont really care if the DM makes a few mechanical adjustments on the fly, etcetera etcetera. Probably anathema to a number (even most) of the posters here.

Nonetheless, I get a lot of value out of reading the posts of those who do understand and care enough to critique the system. I'm unlikely to ever actually play the way they suggest the game 'should' be played, but I dont take their comments as hostile (and similarly, I try not to phrase my comments as "it should be like this" but rather "I prefer it like this"). I think a lot of the arguments which arise on the forums could be averted through a more charitable reading of the "opposing" side's posts.

You might find value in their input even whilst thinking that the way they choose or build characters would feel dull to you. The only time it could possibly be an issue fun-wise is if you sit down at the table with someone of a very different mindset. Even then, I suspect it's not that hard to build a game both will enjoy, provided everyone is prepared to compromise a little.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

Wandering monster encounters.

(And fingers crossed there'll be an annual "print compilation" of these PDFs).


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I'm not a fan of "extreme action poses" for humanoid minis. I use them more often in non combat scenes or as proxies for PCs than the more typical monstrous ones. As such, I would have preferred if the monk wasn't actually mid air.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Bill Webb wrote:
The leather is at the printer, and I have contracted the blacksmith (that's right Steve Geddes--blacksmith!) and woodworker for the Nuclear Edition books.These will be hand crafted metal and cherry wood books/boxes. To say they are nearly breakeven is an understatement--but they will be the nicest books ever made.

*swoon*


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Tirisfal wrote:
Many times skill and experience are far more important than a degree, just as a degree isn't necessarily going to net you a high-paying job.

My first degree was in pure maths and philosophy. I actually emerged less employable than when I went in. :o


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I think DM fudging is one of those things a group should discuss explicitly. Some people like it, some people dont - no doubt someone has to compromise but I think being aware of that give-and-take is far superior to secret adjustments and/or suspicion of such.

It's also worth noting that our perceptions of odds and probability are notoriously inaccurate. Before I'd accuse him of anything, I'd be sure to keep an actual, objective tally (including every save he makes against your attacks). Over the years I've seen several people swear an oath their dice is "definitely" biased only to be proved wrong after a couple of hundred carefully tallied rolls.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I'm really interested to see whether they go back to an OGL. I dont have any great investment in it personally (I'm more a fan of "official content only" in my games), but over the last few years I've formed the view that the large amount of open content is one of the biggest factors in Pathfinder's ongoing success.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
GreyWolfLord wrote:
Sorry, didn't want to contribute to a problem. Just thinking about ways to have a place where a more general way of discussions about how to make a character or create a character (for example, though the class is not not in PF, for the next adventure we run, one of the players would like to run a Warlock for the next PF adventure) without the optimization and other things being the central focus, and more on ways to implement and have fun with the characterizations and such.

I think you can get advice of the kind you're looking for by spelling out what you want (without using terms like normal, traditional, usual, majority, etcetera). My advice would be to be descriptive and explicit: quirky characterisation, conflicting motivations, interesting weaknesses or whatever it is you're looking for advice on. In doing so, you're probably also going to get advice along the lines of character builds, synergies and effectiveness but that's just extra information or a different perspective you can ignore.

Whilst I suspect I am of a similar mindset to you when it comes to creating characters, it doesnt bother me if someone suggests my dagger wielding fighter is a poor choice because of <very good optimisation argument>. I'd encourage you to think of that sort of comment as just free advice you dont have to pay any attention to rather than them declaring you're doing it "wrong".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I think the existence of always-evil or always-good races is "unrealistic" but then again there's no real world analogs for the RPG concept of good and evil anyway so any attempt to insert alignment is unrealistic - the fact it's detectable making it some kind of objective thing, the fact you can be evil regardless of actions (ie a newly animated undead) making it a weird moral property if that's what it's supposed to model.

Having said that, it's quick and easy to populate one's gameworld with stereotypes to the point of caricature. I would personally think that there are some good-aligned communities of drow and orcs in my version of Golarion. I'd pretty confidently predict that my players are never going to meet them though (or if they do it will be THE focus of the adventure).

If there are too many exceptions floating around, the value of those stereotypes becomes lessened. Everyone you meet is an unknown where their race/culture becomes superficial description (realistic, but not necessarily helpful for all games).

If we had the time to game for more than a few hours a week, I'd be quite interested in developing a richer and more subtle campaign setting. I dont think it adds anything other than confusion, uncertainty or indecision when the players dont have time for any between session consideration and games night is barely two hours of effective play followed by an hour and a half of sleepy play.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
It's the attempt to force a label onto people, which often carries negative connotations that I find grating.

Especially when it's phrased as if the labeller understands your motivations better than you do. ("You may say you're into the story, but you're really just thinking about the numbers.")

It's best to just take people at face value, in my experience. Especially when all you really know about them is gleaned from a few internet posts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
The Sword wrote:

It amazes me that, after 5 pages of comments complaining about the lack of updates, when we get an update, those same people complain that it isn't good enough. Surprise surprise.

We've been given a timeframe for the next instalment, and art previews to show work is still being undertaken on book three. It has also proved wrong the cynics that said Gary had disappeared into the wide blue yonder with our money. We just need patience. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see the books incomplete until mid 2015... I've been waiting a lot longer for 'The Winds of Winter'.

In five years time after finishing play on an epic and original campaign we will look back and have totally forgotten a years delay. The series, the company, and Gary will be remembered for the quality of the product first and foremost, and that will determine the success of future kick starters. Whatever the nay-Sayers may think.

Provided the quality is there Gry can take as long as he likes, in fact I'd say it is imperative he does so. The reaction to his update only goes to show why he would stay away - a number of posters using any comment as a reason to launch an attack. Who wants to work in that environment. The surest way to guarantee defensiveness is to go on the offence.

For my part, I'm not complaining about it being late. I'm complaining about not being kept in the loop.

The delay doesnt matter to me at all. What bothers me is promising one thing and then not explaining why when you change your undertaking. (I dont understand why I havent gotten book one yet, for example - I dont really care that I havent gotten it yet, I care that he hasnt told me why).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

eBay and amazon are useful sites when it comes to answering the exasperated question: "You bought MORE paizo books!?"

"I did. But look at the aftermarket! This is an investment for our future, I'm telling you."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Chris Lambertz wrote:
Removed some posts. Comments like this really aren't appropriate. If it's not directly involving something overheard in our office, it does not belong in this thread. Thanks!

You take requests, right? Would you guys mind discussing the plot for the AP after Iron Gods for a little while?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
lokiare wrote:

My question is this: If they plan on releasing the start set in 2 months, does that mean they are pretty much done testing it and its gone to the printer?

Does this mean the starter set will have many rules changes between then and the PHB release?

I don't have any special knowledge, of course. But I'd be surprised if the big decisions hadn't been made by now.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
Kevin Mack wrote:
Actually I still dont think he has lied or stolen anything (Then again I was pretty certain from the start that this was going to be a lot more complicated/longer than he planned.)

Me neither. I have no real problem with an ambitious project falling behind - I'm pretty sure Ultimate Psionics fell behind schedule as did a couple of the Frog God Games kickstarters (or offshoots from them, anyhow). I've never been concerned, since both of them have remained engaged with their supporters. Even Paizo have slippages from time to time (though not of this magnitude) but they have a clear process to keep things up front about what's going on.

I'm pretty relaxed about people taking their time to get it right, provided they keep talking to me and explaining what's going on. After an absence such as the last one (especially given the negative sentiment on the comments section of the kickstarter), I was perplexed that Gary didnt make any effort to explain what had gone wrong.

There might be personal dramas impacting on his ability to deliver and I dont expect him to share his life with us. But even a reference to "private issues" or some kind of revision of his timeframe would have been better than calmly proceeding as if nothing has gone awry, imo.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I pretty much have similar prejudices as the OP when it comes to playing a race. I play humans almost exclusively with the odd axe-wielding dwarf or bow-toting elf. In order to contribute something other than "what I like" though, I think it's worth bearing in mind that when you're DMing you're running the game for the players. Despite my personal tastes, the group I DM for generally favor what I consider to be bizarre races. Often because of synergies/special abilities which tie in with their chosen class, but equally often due to a "cool factor".

In my view, it's more important that I run a game that suits my players' style than my own. For example, my Golarion has Dragonborn and Eladrin since I ran a 4E game and the players wanted to play those races (neither of which appeal to me, at all).

I wouldnt suggest "get another group" as a solution, but I think it's worth considering whether restrictions/limitations you impose are increasing your players' enjoyment or reducing it. Obviously there's some give-and-take (since the DM is playing for fun too) but it seems to me to be a common error to try and run a game and construct a world you'd enjoy playing in, rather than a game your players would enjoy playing in.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

To me the update without any meaningful apology or explanation was a let down. We still haven't received book one (they were supposed to be mailed "several weeks" after the pdf) and all we know about future instalments is that they're drawing some nice pictures.

This project has had terrible communication - that's its biggest failing. Being late is hardly surprising or unusual, but not explaining what's going on is inexcusable, in my view.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber
lokiare wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I, for one, will be happy if the price of RPGs increases to a level more representative of their cost to produce and minuscule demand. RPG professionals aren't paid enough, in my view. The only realistic way that's going to change is if prices go up.
Or, you know, the hobby starts to actually advertise and goes mainstream.

I've considered that but excluded it based on the "realistic" clause.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I certainly agree that it's a problem. I think it's one of perception though.

Whilst I dont think the idea is unreasonable, presumably there is no list of FAQs which have been forgotten, so the list of "pending FAQs" is going to be identical to the list of "unanswered FAQs" - which makes publishing it kind of irrelevant (and a drain on precious FAQ-time).

For my part, I'd like the development team to prioritise FAQ requests for ommitted information (like range, targets, duration, and so forth) over corner cases. I'd also like them to prioritise long-standing FAQ requests. However, I dont want it to become some formula - perhaps a long-standing FAQ is just very complex, very contentious within the design team or has some other issue. Perhaps some recently arrived, corner-case FAQs are more far reaching than some long-standing, specific query.

I'd rather they use their professional judgement as to what's next and what's for later. In other words - I suspect they're already doing exactly what I've suggested.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

  • Their people
  • Their commitment to quality
  • Their willingness to try new things
  • Their customer service (including warehouse crew)
  • Their openness about their business, goals and intentions


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber

I wonder whether it will ever be enough though. They publish what? Hundreds of FAQs a year? Dozens at least. Yet there's quite a lot of complaint over the ones left unanswered for a long time. If those were answered, wouldnt the expectation just shift to whichever are unanswered?

1 to 50 of 677 << 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.