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. Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber. 7,982 posts (9,019 including aliases). 12 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 9 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,075 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Charlie D. wrote:
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Mattastrophic wrote:
If you think about it, this decision is great for third party publishers.
*looks around innocently* *hums to himself for a moment*

Totally off topic here for a moment, but those that click this link and enter their email address and check a 5e box before tomorrow morning may get a nice surprise come the morning.

Just saying. Totally has nothing to do with Dungeons and Dragons and a lack of support. Nothing at all.

Any news on this? I am very curious.

The email didn't announce any dates. However, the plan is for two low level adventures with two more (releasing concurrently in PF and 5E) down the track.

The first adventures are to be conversions of Rescue From Tyrkaven and Doom of the Sky Sword


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

Yeah - I'd prefer to write my own. I'm just not very good at it.
The limitations are personal, not structural.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Dale McCoy Jr wrote:
Adjule wrote:
I still have the mindset that a DM who uses published adventures is a lazy failure of a DM because he can't come up with adventures of his own.
I use to agree with you on that. Now I recognize that it is just a matter of how much free time you have. The first published adventure I ever used in 2011-ish time frame. For the 15+ years before that I prided myself at never, ever using a published adventure. Now I'm just plain busy and published adventures are pretty much the only way I can run a game anymore, unless I want to wing it every session.

There's another factor (for some of us, anyway). I am a fundamentally uncreative person - the adventures I make up are just hands-down worse than those written by professionals.

I have the time to make up adventures, but if I pay professionals to do it for me, my players will have a better time (which is my number one goal as a DM).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
MAJT69 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I think they're targetting the bloat-fatigued rather than the option-hungry. (Although that article does anticipate more options down the track - it's just not their focus).

I see the lack of upcoming splatbooks as a strength.
That just seems ironic considering you have several monthly subscriptions to Pathfinder. Presemably you want at least some of their monthly content then? Would you really be happy if Paizo didn't release new content outside the Core book?

I would be delighted if Paizo never published another feat, monster, option, class or archetype. We dont really play Pathfinder much anymore, but when we do the only rulebooks we use are the CRB and ultimate campaign.

I subscribe for mainly two reasons - because I believe the company is worth supporting (even though their RPG is not to my taste) and I enjoy their flavor material more than anyone else's.

In my specific instance, "bloat-fatigue" only applies to mechanical options - I could deal with fortnightly adventures, campaign sourcebooks and flavor-focussed player companions (possibly even weekly, to be honest). :)

Quote:

Why can't D&D players want new content? Why can't we play psions or celestial mages or whatever?

Why is there no middle ground between a deluge of new stuff every month, and absolutely nothing new being released?

Everyone who argues that a total lack of content is such a good thing seems to be ignoring the Paizo model. And as far as I can see, they seem to be doing quite well.

I simply cannot see how a revamped D&D having nothing new for the RPG for the first year can be considered a 'strength'.

Perhaps the term was misleading - I dont think there's a right amount of bloat, I meant that there are fundamentally two, distinct markets and the two companies are trying to address different needs.

I certainly think D&D players can want new crunch - all I meant was that I dont want new game mechanics. Hence, the approach WotC are taking suits me down to the ground (though I'd always like more than any company is able to produce, I suspect).

In my view, the clear distinction between the two games is a good thing - those who like rules expansions and an ever-increasing set of mechanical options to pick and choose as they wish can play Pathfinder. Those who would rather have a simple, stable ruleset with flavor-based enhancement and limited (not nonexistent, just tied to the story they're releasing at the time) mechanical expansion can play D&D. I dont think it's good for the industry to say "This model works for Paizo, so every company should adopt the same philosophy". Provided there is sufficient demand for the different niches, I am happy to see the market diversifying somewhat, rather than all following the same path.

In summary, I wasnt trying to suggest you were wrong to find D&D's approach unappealing - I think the sensible thing for your group to do is to abandon the game in favor of one that suits you better (with lots of options you can pick and choose from to make it just the way you like it). I was responding to your identification of their strategy as "bizarre". It certainly isnt designed to capture your dollars - but it is designed to appeal to a different market. It seems to me that people who like options are often unaware of how unappealing the "just ignore what you dont want" strategy is to those of us who are truly crunch-averse. It's not that I find some of the options bad - I dont enjoy having lots of options (as it happens, D&D has too many options for me. I prefer even simpler than that, but it's a good compromise for my table - many of whom do enjoy the character building side of things).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Lorathorn wrote:
MAJT69 wrote:


That just seems ironic considering you have several monthly subscriptions to Pathfinder. Presemably you want at least some of their monthly content then? Would you really be happy if Paizo didn't release new content outside the Core book?

Note though that his subscriptions are to the core line, the comics, the miniatures, and the maps line. I'd say it falls in line with his statements and opinions.

Nah - the PF RPG Superscriber includes a bunch of others beyond the core. I subscribe to everything paizo and its licensees put out except for the cards - I just have way too many item cards and that seems to be the thing that sells :(


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

I think they're targetting the bloat-fatigued rather than the option-hungry. (Although that article does anticipate more options down the track - it's just not their focus).

I see the lack of upcoming splatbooks as a strength.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Hmm wrote:
Here's my number one request... Have the system remember your default character ID for each separate gameplay thread.

Yeah, that would be useful. The ability to "hibernate" aliases so they no longer show up in the 'post as' pulldown menu would also help me for all those abortive or unsuccessful PBP attempts.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Ross Byers wrote:
Credits page wrote:

Authors • Dennis Baker, Jesse Benner, Ross Beyers, Logan Bonner, Jason Bulmahn, Robert Emerson, Tim Hitchcock, Jason Nelson,

Tom Phillips, Stephen Radney-MacFarland, Thomas M. Reid, Robert Schwalb, Mark Seifter, and Russ Taylor
*Ahem*

Creybaby.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber

Microwave ovens sure put a stop to traditional stove top cooking. Just as predicted.


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

Hope: they shift to producing more flavor than now and less mechanics.

Fear: they go broke (no offence intended, but it's a fear I have for every RPG company).


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

I'm sure they will start sending them out before then, but it's worth mentioning that you shouldnt put too much store in the pre-auth expiration date. I've definitely had pre-auths expire then waited another week or more before the card was charged and my books shipped.

As I said - I'd be astonished if they hadnt shipped a good proportion by the 17th, but I dont think you (generic you) should bank on receiving a copy based on a pre-auth expiration. :/


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

I'd be concerned enough to live in a country where 'open carry' was a term that needed to be invented. :o


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
Barachiel Shina wrote:
Can anyone here explain why they would take Core Rogue over Unchained Rogue? Or any of the other 3 for that matter? (but Rogue more than anything)
If anybody attempts to answer that question without having actually read the finished classes, I would strongly suggest you discount their answer.

I can't resist a challenge. :)

I suspect I'll keep using the CRB rogue (though rogues arent really my thing, certainly the old monk though) because I dont like looking through multiple books. Power or even effectiveness isnt high up on my list of priorities when making a character.


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

Questions that will now not be frequently asked - a kind of grandfather paradox in action.


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

Repeating a question from the earlier thread:

Are you completely against the idea of rolling 4d6, drop the lowest? We've found that stats in 5E dont have as much of an impact as they do in PF and I (for one) prefer rolling - especially given this kind of campaign, I'd like to roll in order and see what kind of character presents itself rather than to construct a PC from the ground up. (I'm never one to shie away from crappy stats, so I wont ask to reroll or anything, no matter the result).

If you are deadset against rolling, I'm still interested, but I wondered if you had a reason against or if it was possibly a holdover from PF (where stats are much more significant and hence disparity between PCs matters more).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Danbala wrote:
I think its telling that Wizards now seems to be following the Paizo approach in leading with 1-20 adventures and then offering supplements to support them.

What I find most surprising is the shift to outsourcing production of the adventure content. Addressing 'bloat' was clearly an idea whose time had come - it seems to me that WotC are vying away from the OGL approach and are looking to utilise third party publishers through a more traditional licensee/collaborator model. I didnt expect that.


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

I found the advancing timeline of the realms a barrier - not because new books contradicted what had happened in my game but because new books contradicted what my other books said. (The merry go round of deities was the obvious example, but it doesn't have to be that high powered to be annoying to me).

If I read a new book that talks about the Queen of Korvosa and my guidebook refers to the King of Korvosa then I find myself doubting the rest of the book - what else has changed? Where do I go to find the changes?

It's not an issue if you own everything from the beginning and keep on top of stuff, but it's a definite barrier to entry for someone new - who likes the sound of a particular region, sees it referenced in a recent AP or module and then buys a sourcebook which contradicts their other reference since several canonical changes have occurred since it was written.


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

Paizo have previously expressed reservations about part time and/or temporary staff. A heavier reliance on freelancers is possible, I guess. However, the main point is not one of resources, nor demand for the product. This is why crowdfunding isn't a solution - as gorbacz mentioned, it solves problems paizo doesn't have.

The main issue arising from making compilations more common than "once in a blue moon....maybe" is paizo's business model (heavily subscription based) and the fact that providing incentive to stop subscribing is a risk to that model.

We can all theorise about how the benefits would "definitely" outweigh the costs - but we're not responsible for the ongoing employment of dozens of people, nor the financial viability of an extremely successful company. I actually suspect that the powers that be also believe that semi regular hardcover compilations wouldn't be too deleterious to their business overall. Risk mitigation is about more than belief though - things are going very well for paizo and tinkering with a core part of that success should be a last resort.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Sara Marie wrote:
cosmo: PHASE ONE: COMPLETE.

Not necessarily relevant.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
But it's mostly semantics at that point.

It seems like nothing but, to me.

I've been struggling to come up with a consequence for adopting either position (Anzyr's or Scythia's) and I can't think of one beyond how you refer to your game.


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

To address that specific instance, I wouldn't see anything wrong with a DM constructing a world in which gillmen originated in an aboleth culture and then migrating away - losing all significant knowledge of aboleth in the intervening centuries but retaining the use of the language. The slimehunter trait is a little more difficult to wave away, I guess, but even that I could imagine the "rebellious tribe" centuries ago being unusually resistant to aboleth magic and their descendants carrying that with them.

As a guiding principle, I allow huge leeway when a DM is world-creating and do my best to accommodate anything which may initially push at my suspension of disbelief boundaries. However, as DM, I think it's also important to try and allow whatever PC concept the players have got fired up over. I think it's best to not form a concrete view about what's "right" but rather remember that it's all preference - often two disparate views can be accommodated with a little rejigging.

So if the DM felt that gillmen knew nothing about aboleth, but it was important to the player that their gillman PC be knowledgeable about and opposed to the aboleth, I think it would be easy enough to have some source of obscure lore in their backstory which provided some of that knowledge. If the whole campaign story was about this "new threat from below" or something then perhaps the character isn't suited for this campaign.


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

As an accountant, I regularly refuse to work for people who want to do legal things that I'm not comfortable supporting/enabling - I suggest they find another accountant. I dont really see why I shouldnt be allowed to do that (?) I dont think it's relevant if no other accountant will do it either.

Is there a difference between me and the hypothetical barber who doesnt want to cut women's hair (or redheads or whatever personal decision they make)?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Elrawien Lantherion wrote:
Wouldnt they make more money if they made it more readily available?

Keeping them scarce and using them as an incentive for (predominantly retailers) to order a case may result in lower profit on this specific figure, but probably brings in much more than it loses in increasing sales of the main product (the cases).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I disagree. I've always had you pegged as Lawful Wordy.

AHEM.

Tacticslion wrote:

Tacticslion as Enthusiastic Nerd

Probably lawful nerdy. Almost certainly lawful nerdy. If anyone disagrees, <snip> I'll fine you for it. ([b]The cost is one extremely inexpensive PDF. :P)
*Waits expectantly... despite any accuracy the preceding poster may have going for him*

Oh yeah, good point. I'm definitely chaotic (probably neutral with good tendencies). So that fine thing you mentioned...?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
What's an example of a healthy risk?
A healthy risk is one that, if the gamble fails, situation = status quo.

So what is being risked, in that situation?

I think you're conflating risk and uncertainty.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Tacticslion wrote:

Tacticslion as Enthusiastic Nerd

Probably lawful nerdy. Almost certainly lawful nerdy. If anyone disagrees, you're wrong. Period.

I disagree. I've always had you pegged as Lawful Wordy.


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

Welcome, Jason.

I trust your employee welcome kit included armor spikes for your upcoming battle with the developers. They hate that.


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

1. Ultimate plugins combined with Kingdom building AP plugins as one mega tome. (I like big books, I cannot lie).
2. Righteous Crusade AP plugins
3. Pirate AP plugins.

If I can't have number 1, then Kingdom building AP plugins drops off the list (or becomes number 4).


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

Sure. If you're a game designer its a good idea to be clear about what sort of game you've produced. (I'd call it bad marketing rather than bad design, personally).

However, we were talking about gamers offering their opinions/preferences - someone who just plays RPGs and has personal preferences is entitled to state them without being held to the same standards of disclosure as a professional publisher (in my view, they're often ignorant of the fact that their preference for realism in particular situations has the effect of creating a power imbalance between the mundane/magical classes - you can hardly disclose what you don't know).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
It is terrible design. Because 7 levels ago his weakling buddy wiggled his fingers and scurried up that wall faster than anyone could possibly achieve. In the subsequent 7 levels that weakling has started shaping reality to his own whims. Whereas, the fighter still can't climb the wall. That is bad design.

Not if your aim is to design a game where magic solutions are better than mundane ones.

Quote:
You may be willing to accept it in the system because you admittedly don't play mid or high level games. You really aren't in a position to comment on how the system behaves if you haven't played it

Which is why I just accepted your characterisation of it without question, plus spelled out the limits of my experience with the relevant parts of pathfinder. I'm not commenting on a system, I'm commenting on the fact that people want different things out of games - what some consider "good" design, others will declare "terrible".

Quote:
and have no basis for your claims on sound design.

Nonsense. You don't have to know anything about pathfinder to make a claim about what constitutes good game design. What a silly thing to say.

My claim was that someone may desire realism as a general principle and yet be willing to ignore the unrealistic nature of hit points whilst preferring realistic limits on climbing - all without advocating bad design. I don't need to have heard of pathfinder to make that claim, I just need to read the posts of people who believe that.

"Bad design" depends on what kind of game you want to design - balance between mundane and magical classes is important to many but not to all. Realism is important to some but not to all. Which of those should be preferred in cases of conflict is not an objective matter.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:
The problem with that is the idea of what "really could happen," is based on what we believe humans "could do" in our world. Which is all well and good up to about 4th level. At 10th level the fighter should be so badass that he can dig his fingers into solid granite and scale the 200 ft wall in a matter of minutes. Because he is more than twice as awesome as anyone on earth has ever been.

He's more awesome based on physical punishment he can take - or various other mechanically derived limits, presumably - I've never survived to tenth level in PF, so I wouldn't know. :)

Again though, someone may be quite happy with those other superhuman feats but baulk at "unrealistic" rock climbing. Verisimilitude is not some measured on some objectively determined scale - some things slip by unnoticed, or at least accepted. Others make us stop and go "No way! That's just silly!" There's nothing inherently forcing one to accept some superhuman ability purely because you've previously accepted a different one. Maybe the fantasy reality is like ours in some ways and not in others - what "feels right" is always going to be subjective.

For example, hit points and group-allocated experience points jar for me. Any system with those in it always seems arbitrary and unrealistic. I can't claim that they "should" be abandoned though - merely that I prefer it if they are.

Similarly, the mega damage vs mega climbing issue you point to here might seem "the same" to you - in that, having accepted a fighter falling 200 feet you feel comfortable accepting he's able to gouge granite (I'm reasonably comfortable with that account myself, I think). That doesn't mean the rock climber who accepts the first for simplification reasons but discards the latter on realism reasons is wrong (nor guilty of supporting "bad design").


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
BigDTBone wrote:

But it isn't just magic, for example: my example.

My fighter can fall 200 feet off a wall and stand up instantly. But the fighter can't climb back up that wall because it has a smooth surface. And that is supposed to make sense/be predictable because.... reasons....

It's a good example and many would find it compelling.

Nonetheless, just because one part of the game strikes one as unrealistic but "acceptable" (due to playability, simplicity or whatever), it doesnt follow that unrealistic assumptions/outcomes in another part of the game will also be accepted. Someone could easily accept the unrealistic nature of hit points as a necessary evil (because they recognise the benefits of such simplification) but baulk at mundane creatures in the world performing outside real-world physical limits in areas other than damage.

Standards of verisimilitude and where one draws the line in terms of suspension of disbelief are inherently subjective. There isnt a correct amount of consistency/realism in the rules - different people will require different levels of consistency/realism in different areas of the rules, depending on their personal experiences and predilections.

I think one consequence of that is it tends to reinforce the idea that magic is strictly better than mundane - many would accept "unrealistic" mundane stunts on that basis alone. Personally, I prefer systems where magic >> mundane, so that motivation for climbing thousand foot cliffs doesnt carry much weight.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Ivan Rûski wrote:

Boo to feathered dinosaurs!

In all honesty, I don't have a problem with the mini. It looks fine. Just no matter what science may say, dinosaurs will forever be big lizards in my brain, not overgrown turkeys.

Yeah, me too. I don't see why historical (probable) accuracy should trump cultural prejudice, personally. Dinosaurs with feathers don't look like dinosaurs, no matter what real ones looked like.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Drejk wrote:
Anyway the actual number is bigger. Those $15m estimate was actually estimate of brick and mortar game stores IIRC, not the whole pen and paper RPG. So after adding digital products, bookstores (which I think weren't part of the survey), and other venues that might have rpgs it should be probably a significantly bigger number (and by significantly I mean a few millions more).

According to the report, it was an estimate of all markets, not just those from game stores.

Having said that, it was predominantly based on interviews with game stores and distributors. Whether they have many contacts within other markets and whether they did a good job extrapolating to the bigger picture is a moot point, but it's still the best we've got available.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Vic Wertz wrote:
I don't know for sure, but I like to think that the increasing dominance of "nerd culture" and the decline of groups putting forth the "D&D is evil" message have improved things since then, but I can tell you that over the years, Pathfinder has certainly reaped some benefits from *not* being D&D.

Cheers, I hadnt thought of that. The devil-worshipping bit was pretty mild down here and had definitely fizzled out by the 90s - you americans are a funny bunch. :p


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
CommandoDude wrote:

[I get the feeling you never actually played much 4e. "No one ever dies"? I played 4e for about 2 years, I saw players die, I saw players get close to dying a lot more often - and that's with a system where you can do some really crazy things with item synergy. It is a lot harder to die in 4E, but you certainly aren't anywhere close to being invincible (especially since 4E did away with a lot of super powerful spells casters could use to make themselves ACTUALLY invincible)

And the Wizard being as competent as a Fighter is a feature. 4E actually did what no version of DnD ever did before it, which was eliminate the problem of Linear Warrior Quadratic Wizard.

It sometimes seems obligatory, in any discussion of two completely different RPGs, for someone to opine that 4E sucks. I'm surprised it took that long, to be honest. :/


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
MMCJawa wrote:
Yep...at this point I am completely unclear what is being meant by brand.

What I mean is the associations with the name of a product which differentiate it from a generic version, in the eyes of the public*. One of the reasons I think D&D has an undeniably strong brand is that it is regarded as the only example.

I eventually got sick of typing it out, but I've been referring to D&D's brand strength in the wider community, not in the gaming subculture. I think it's definitely declined in power in the latter group, however I don't think that matters.

*:
Thats not intended as an exhaustive definition, just an off the cuff explanation.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Kthulhu wrote:


Steve Geddes wrote:
I don't think they "have it" at all. I think they lost it when they launched 4E and pathfinder (and, to a lesser extent the OSRIC movement) rose up in response.
The OSR stuff started during 3.5.

I wasn't speaking of its genesis, but I think it gained a significant amount of traction after 4E's release.

I think market dominance was WotC's to lose and I think they gave up some of the "genuine article" brand power to Pathfinder and the OSRIC movement - both of whom grabbed some of the "torchbearer" status amongst different segments of the market.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
sunshadow21 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:


What you havent established but just keep repeating as fact is that putting out a new edition of the RPG is symptomatic of a failure of the brand overall.
It's more that the same arguments of how the rpg doesn't matter and they are trying to branch out tend to get highlighted at the launch of new editions. The new editions themselves aren't really the issue; they just tend to highlight how much progress really hasn't been made in other areas since the last edition.

Okay. I have no idea how you can continue to hold the view that D&D is a weak, failed or inconsistent brand. I don't have anything further to say though.

Brand strength doesn't equal critical acclaim, nor does "consistent success" mean "no failures".


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
sunshadow21 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Drizzt, for one. As I said, it makes no sense to judge their branding a failure by first excluding all of the widely known, commercially successful products. However, you're the one making the claim. How about advancing some evidence beyond opinion and speculation about goals that you have no knowledge of?
Being inconsistent and being a failure are two different things. One or two amazing products surrounded by a sea of mediocrity very definitely makes the brand inconsistent. As for being a failure, at some level, it clearly is, or we wouldn't be having more or less the same conversation right after the release of 5E that people had after the release of 4E.

What you havent established but just keep repeating as fact is that putting out a new edition of the RPG is symptomatic of a failure of the brand overall. I provided a counterexample to that in Colgate continually re-defining what "toothbrush technology" entails - the fact they keep re-inventing their core product is not a sign that things are bad in Colgate-land nor that "the brand is obviously in trouble". Similarly, the edition treadmill is not indicative of a decline in the D&D brand (outside of the TTRPG market - there's clearly been a denigration of the brand there since WotC moved on from 3.5).

Honestly, the concept "D&D is not a successful, long term brand" is such a weird position to adopt. The only reason I'm continuing to beat the issue to death is that I cant understand how anyone can think that. It seems to me that we must be talking at cross purposes.

People with no idea of what an RPG is have often heard of D&D - that's a remarkable thing and points to a hugely successful brand. Even moreso if (as you repeatedly claim) they havent had any success in the last few years.

Whether the computer games are any good, whether 5E is going to survive for very long, whether you personally think they've achieved their revenue goals with the boardgames (!) are all irrelevant to the strength of the brand.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
sunshadow21 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

Again you're focussing on the (economically irrelevant) TTRPG market.

How has their release of computer games changed in the last couple of years that makes you think they've adopted an "upstart" demeanour? Their approach to comics? To novels? What would make a fan of Salvatore's books suddenly think "Gee, these guys are clearly desperate!"?

It may be less relevant than other markets, but the TTRPG is the one they currently have.

I don't think they "have it" at all. I think they lost it when they launched 4E and pathfinder (and, to a lesser extent the OSRIC movement) rose up in response.

There's just not room for much profit as number two (or even a hotly contested number one) roleplaying game. The total market for RPGs in North America was recently estimated at $15m - half of that is a relative pittance when you could rather be competing for a slice of the hundreds of millions of dollars available in board games, miniatures, computer games and other such markets.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
sunshadow21 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I'm disputing your claim that D&D is not a strong, "consistent" brand outside of the TTRPG.
Than name any truly strong D&D product out there today that isn't Drizzt or the PHB.

Drizzt, for one. As I said, it makes no sense to judge their branding a failure by first excluding all of the widely known, commercially successful products. However, you're the one making the claim. How about advancing some evidence beyond opinion and speculation about goals that you have no knowledge of?

I think WotC are clearly and obviously focussing on the non-TTRPG aspects of D&D. I think they're essentially abandoning the field in the competition for "most popular RPG".

You've stated they "obviously" think all of those other ventures have been a failure over the years and that they believe they need to rebuild their "base" of the brand via the TTRPG.

Which is more consistent with their approach to releases of 5E? To the lack of clarity regarding the OGL or similar?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
sunshadow21 wrote:
In the end, WotC is behaving more like the upstart trying to establish themselves in one big, bold stroke while Paizo is acting like the mature company that has the history to allow them make more, smaller gains.

Again you're focussing on the (economically irrelevant) TTRPG market.

How has their release of computer games changed in the last couple of years that makes you think they've adopted an "upstart" demeanour? Their approach to comics? To novels? What would make a fan of Salvatore's books suddenly think "Gee, these guys are clearly desperate!"?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
sunshadow21 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
Speaking about the strength of WotC's business doesnt have to be seen through the prism of "who is better?"
The comparison does help highlight the difficulties that WotC faces vs the challenges that it's competitors face, though, in all markets. A direct comparison is not possible, but looking at the size of the gaps of where the different companies are vs where they want to be is a valid approach, and WotC is much, much farther from their goals than Paizo is from their goals. This isn't automatically a disaster because WotC is making gambles that, if they pay off, will close the gap very quickly, but that doesn't reduce the fact that they are fairly large gambles, complete with fairly large potential loss in the case of failure.

You clearly are in no position to make the various statements in this paragaraph. I'm not challenging their truth, but neither of us have any idea what each company's goals are - let alone how "close" they are to them.

However, I was just responding to your "...everyone claims..." comment. I'm not making the claim you were attributing to "everyone", I'm disputing your claim that D&D is not a strong, "consistent" brand outside of the TTRPG.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Quote:
Paizo, for all that it lacks the name recognition, is in a far better place business wise. All of their products actively support each other, and they already have almost as much actual current product as WotC in most of the non-tabletop markets that everyone claims that WotC has such a strong advantage.

FWIW, I'm not claiming WotC have an advantage - I'm speaking about D&D as a brand. That has nothing to do with Paizo (in fact, my opinion is that Paizo benefits from the brand strength of D&D).

Speaking about the strength of WotC's business doesnt have to be seen through the prism of "who is better?"


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Katina Mathieson wrote:
If QA Erik is to be believed, the authorization process should be all done!

Better than the old "If Cosmo is to be trusted...".


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

When it comes to the attempted murder, I think the character needs a really good reason to not go to the police. It happens all the time in fiction but it doesnt happen all the time in real life and (for me at least) it always presents as a jarring moment in the story - unless there's a really good reason for not trusting in the authorities. Ignoring (or self-policing) the theft is more believable - people tolerate theft all the time.

I dont think I'd consider someone like that a 'real' friend anymore, but it would depend on the nature of the relationship. If all of this stuff was the kind of thing I'd have expected him to tell me, then I'd really doubt the rest of what we'd shared. If we were just friends due to a shared hobby or something then perhaps that would continue.

Dishonesty, particularly to that level, makes friendship difficult. Seeing murder as an acceptable solution to a love-triangle would lead me to suspect sociopathy and makes friendship dangerous.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
sunshadow21 wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:

I guess if you exclude the successful products, they haven't had much success. However, I suspect WotC are using a different metric than you. No doubt Drizzt counts, in their eyes.

It's hard to see why they'd take the approach they seem to be adopting if they shared your view that D&D has failed as a "sustained, consistent" brand over the years.

Except that WotC clearly believes that it has failed as a sustained brand. There's a reason we already see 5E (and why 5E is designed the way it is) and that the novels outside of Drizzt are functionally not there as far as the bottom line is concerned. Even on the movie front, they have started a legal battle to get the license away from someone whose track record with the license is not what WotC and Hasbro were expecting. It's not because of any sustained success, but quite the opposite. Successful brands don't have to essentially hit the reboot button like WotC has had to consistently do throughout their ownership of the brand. To be fair, TSR had the same difficulties; they just chose a different way to try to solve them, with about the same amount of non-success. D&D has always been more successful on a cultural level than a business level.

It's not ignoring the successful products, it's also looking at the less than successful stuff at the same time, and more importantly, the ratio between the two groups. Successful brands have more successes than failures; D&D historically doesn't. The successes it has tend to make very big splashes, and there has been enough interest in the brand for someone, usually not the direct owner of the brand, to make a product that keeps the name alive, which is an admirable feat to be certain, but that's about it. WotC is still basically known to the business world as the maker of Magic, with very few people bothering to notice the small impact that D&D has in actual dollars. Active support for the brand as a whole has been sparse in terms of actual product historically, even with the core tabletop game, as many fans consider many, if not most, of the splat books for both 3rd and 4th edition to be worthless.

You're confusing the brand outside of TTRPGs (which is what we were discussing and where I think WotC's focus is clearly directed) with the brand as TTRPGers see it.

Whether gnomes appear as a core race, whether there is "too much bloat", whether the relase schedule of splatbooks is too fast or too slow, whether there's an OGL, whether you can buy core books as PDFs....
All of these "controversies" are irrlevant to the people who buy the novels, the computer games, the boardgames, the comics, etcetetera.

I suspect the edition churn has negligible impact on how the general public view D&D. No doubt they all think we're still playing the same game we were in the 70s (I further suspect they'd include Pathfinder players in that grouping too).

You focus your attention on the TTRPG as some kind of "core product" but I suspect it's more still there for legacy reasons and as some kind of vague salute to authenticity and legitimacy (there's value in being "the first", "the oldest" and so forth). If you asked WotC what the key offering of their D&D branded product was, I suspect they'd nominate their novels (or possibly their computer games - they also seem to have been doing consistently well over recent years, despite legal brawls with Atari).

Furthermore, the idea that consistently 'hitting the reboot button' is some kind of a sign of weakness in a brand is hard to justify. Colgate is a pretty well known brand of dental products here (I presume they're international). Astonishingly, after all these years, they still find brilliant new innovations in toothbrush design every few months and retire their entire range (which was brilliantly cutting edge twelve months ago) for the next big thing - that hardly means the brand isnt strong. It's one well established way of milking a strong, established brand for all its worth.

I cannot understand how anyone can, with a straight face, say D&D doesnt have a strong brand in the wider non-gamer communtiy. It's pretty much the definition of a strong, persistent brand - it invented an industry and is still going strong thirty/forty years later despite all the evolutions of gaming culture in that time. How well the RPG does is a tiny component of that - no matter how excited we get about where advantage/disadvantage sits on the 'dumbed down to brilliant' scale or what we personally think is an ideal rate of sourcebook production.


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

*gasp*

Just got an email that my copies are pending. :)
Nearly there!


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

I guess if you exclude the successful products, they haven't had much success. However, I suspect WotC are using a different metric than you. No doubt Drizzt counts, in their eyes.

It's hard to see why they'd take the approach they seem to be adopting if they shared your view that D&D has failed as a "sustained, consistent" brand over the years.

1 to 50 of 1,075 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 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.