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. 8,225 posts (9,333 including aliases). 13 reviews. No lists. No wishlists. 10 aliases.


1 to 50 of 1,161 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

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

I don't know if you want answers, but here are mine:

Tacticslion wrote:

When flagging a:

- Spammer, which do I choose?

Breaks other guidelines.

Quote:
- Post that has a link to an NSFW site, but lacks that warning, what do I choose?

Offensive/sexist/racist.

Quote:

Is flagging my own post the correct response when I've:

- Made a spelling error?

- Improperly used BBCode Markups?

Wow. You have standards!

Quote:
- Unintentionally insulted someone or something?

I'd use Personal insult/abusive.

Quote:

What happens (or what should I do) when I:

- Disagree with a deleted or edited post, or a moved thread?

Send an email to community@paizo.com or start a thread in the website feedback subforum.

Quote:
- Accidentally flag a post (or flag it, then regret it)?

Don't worry about it. I've done this a few times and asked about an "undo" option - the reply was that it's such a little deal it's not really worth them worrying about.

Quote:
- See a post that contains words purposefully replicated from a Paizo-created work? (Such as an extended quote, with page citations.)

I wouldn't stress, but if it were bad enough, I guess Copyright/Intellectual Property Infringement.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Zolanoteph wrote:
This is unfair. I am requesting that the moderators discipline my detractors.

Because that's the way to win true love? :o


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

I share your view on giving paizo the benefit of the doubt too. In my experience, it's the APs I've least looked forward to that have worked out the best at the table. (Something to do with my expectations, I presume).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
GypsyMischief wrote:
Is this somehow charming if you've been here longer than two years or so?

Well it's something new, which is good enough. I don't need charming.

FWIW, I presumed this was some kind of joke. Not having many friends myself, I have a habit of awkwardly joining in with other people's in jokes....and just getting them, slightly wrong.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Cuuniyevo wrote:
Does pulling a tough encounter out of thin air count as fudging?

I think it does (which is part of the reason I'm so sanguine about cheating and regard the "fantasy world of an RPG, governed by objective rules" to be an illusion).

To me, there's no difference between deciding that the low level mooks all roll higher than is statistically possible or deciding that a higher-than-expected-CR-monster happens along to "provide more of a challenge".

The latter is far more socially acceptable though, it seems to me (and hence superior).


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

Has Gorbacz posted to this thread yet? He's on my ignore script.

-Skeld

I don't think he's posted here in years.


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

I'm pretty sure (though it's been years since I heard it) that the failure of prophecy was baked into the Golarion setting precisely to prevent this kind of story. A kind of deliberate, creative constraint paizo imposed on themselves.


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

Look, it's not you....it's us.


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

It doesn't bother me if people cheat. I think the perception of a fantasy world with objective rules determining the consequences of the PC actions is largely an illusion anyhow.

FWIW, I think the policing of cheating should be part of the DM's job (for pragmatic and social reasons). Therefore, I don't think it's right to push it publicly if the player has "won" the argument, albeit by strength of personality rather than logic. I think it would have been better to bring it up with the DM privately again. He may not like conflict, but I think that's part of the job of running a game (and it's better than a free-for-all, in my view).

Having said all of that - my guess is that your views and actions would be pretty widely held/taken.

So what if a player instead of rolling dice and pretending to not choose the number he wants just openly does not roll and says I choose a 17 for my roll?

He is doing the same thing the cheater is doing. He is just being open about it. Should he also be allowed to keep his numbers?

Well, even that extreme wouldn't bother me, personally (I think. Thought experiments like that can be tough to genuinely answer, no matter how well you think you know yourself). However, I didn't frame it as a "should" thing. I don't think everyone should share my preferences. I suspect most would be unhappy with "pick a number" gameplay, even if it wouldn't bother me and if it impacts on the rest of the group's enjoyment, it's an issue.

As DM (which I usually am) I never audit character sheets or monitor rolls and if people tell me they've drunk a potion or cast a buff spell or something and forgot to tell me - I take their word for it. If a player came to me about another player cheating then I'd see it as my role to sort it out. My personal preferences wouldn't be the overriding factor then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Jiggy wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
As DM, though, I'm usually very careful not to. The BBEG always has rules-legal abilities, strict WBL, and mooks allowable under his Leadership score, for example. NPCs' skill points and other stats are carefully derived. Dice are rolled in the open, no fudging from me. Etc.

Heh, I'm running a 5E PbP right now, with a party picked from an open recruitment thread. I announced in the first post of said thread that I owned only the PHB, and therefore all the "GM stuff" like monster stats and environmental effects and so forth would all be shamelessly pulled out of my arse.

We're having a blast. :)

We are. :)

Though we may, possibly be heading into our first TPK... :o


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

I'm going to put my money on Kingmaker.

I reckon the PACG design team would love to get their teeth into that challenge - I also think the "standard/nonstandard" paradigm is more important for the TTRPG audience. I'd guess the PACG crowd are more interested in innovative mechanics rather than some strong thematic preference.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Does bounded accuracy mean a fighter and wizard have the same bonus to attack or does it just mean stats(not just ability stat) have a ceiling built in such a way that characters such as a cleric and a fighter will have a meaningful difference in attack rolls, but it wont be so far apart that the cleric can not contribute in melee to what a fighter is fighting.

The latter. There's nothing inherent in bounded accuracy that says everyone has to have the same bonus. That's a perception of 5E's implementation of it (although isn't actually true - BAB and proficiency aren't actually equivalents, they're just similar. So all the "fighting" classes have class features to boost their attacks. A fighter chooses from a variety of fighting styles which increase either to hit or damage, for example - on top of the proficiency bonus).

The key feature is that the difference between untrained and "theoretical best" is narrower (in any endeavour to which bounded accuracy is applied).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
EDIT: I do predict some folks will be gobsmacked by the AP. Others will be delighted. Others will be disappointed. Others will be sad. Hopefully most folks will be intrigued and excited about this AP...

Is there an AP that didnt apply to?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Erik Mona wrote:
One day, I won't be doing this anymore, and a part of me will be very relieved.

Well that's just great. What about ME, Erik? Who's going to pick miniatures for me then? Did you think about that? Huh?


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

Yeah, it does solve that problem (to some degree, I confess I haven't played that much of it, but so far nearly every encounter seems relevant to nearly every PC and vice versa).

However, you end up with level twenties not being able to climb sheer cliffs (or with untrained novices having a chance to do so). That's the problem I envisage with trying to port it into a second edition of pathfinder.

I would recommend giving 5E a try though. It's not my cup of tea really, but my group enjoys it and it's a good compromise game for us (not too heavy, not too light).


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

It has far reaching consequences (at least the way 5E did it) - the very best in the world doesn't end up that much better than a novice. So levelling is a much more gradual increase in power.

Which is why I personally don't think it's such a good "fit" for pathfinder - I think the obscene difference between fragile level ones and earth shaking level twenties is really part of the game. In 5E you start more powerful, but you don't increase in scope of action very rapidly.


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

Steve, I agree with you.

From the amount replies about 'bounded accuracy' and thoughtful replies, pro-Pathfinder supporters did read and listen to what the D&D 5e supporters had to say.

It might of become a little heated, but it wasn't spiteful or insulting on purpose.

'Bounded Accuracy' is a very contentious issue. Many of us were part of the 5e play-test (myself included), and 'bounded accuracy' was the deal breaker that made us stay with Pathfinder.

Sure. As I said I have no problem with the argument (FWIW, I don't think PF2 should use bounded accuracy).

I object to the "heat", though and always will, even when (as now) I agree with the people who are being aggressive.


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

Wow, I am surprised by the amount of edition warring going on in this thread. I expect better from the Paizo community than hating on a game. You'd think this was RPG.net or something.

Yeah, I'd like to see Pathfinder 2 steal from 5e. Just like I wanted 5e to steal from Pathfinder. And I'd like to see Pathfinder steal from Fiasco and Fate and the FFG Star Wars. Because good ideas are good ideas.

People gravitate to games that have rules they like. For instance, I loathe the entire idea of Bounded Accuracy and hope it dies in a fire. That's why I'm playing pathfinder and not 5e. I wouldn't be shocked if I'd get pushback if I went to the 5e forum and told them I couldn't wait until a version of 5e came out were they got rid of Bounded Accuracy for some other good idea like how pathfinder does it. I don't know how you expected a different reaction here.
Because it's possible to disagree without getting aggressive?
I haven't seen anything I'd count as excessively aggressive. I don't see people asking "if you like 5e stuff, why aren't you playing that instead of trying to turn our game we like into it?" as aggressive. I don't begrudge people for liking another system but I don't then got to that other system's site and try to change it into another game I like. It comes off as "you've playing it wrong, this game does it better" when you LIKE how it is. The reaction is to be expected.

I expect better, personally. I consider allegations of lying and stupidity aggressive. Similarly "loathing and hoping it dies in a fire" - to me that doesn't sound like not begrudging someone what they like - you hope what they like ceases to exist.

"This is what I like or don't like and this is why" is useful. "That's stupid/People who say that are lying or don't understand/I hope it dies in a fire" is not useful.

There is no correct way to game and different preferences will result in different answers to the question of what's a "good" element of an RPG rule set. Paizo are inclusive and welcoming of all players of all games - they don't need defensive reactions on their behalf. They need polite, considerate discussion.


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

Wow, I am surprised by the amount of edition warring going on in this thread. I expect better from the Paizo community than hating on a game. You'd think this was RPG.net or something.

Yeah, I'd like to see Pathfinder 2 steal from 5e. Just like I wanted 5e to steal from Pathfinder. And I'd like to see Pathfinder steal from Fiasco and Fate and the FFG Star Wars. Because good ideas are good ideas.

I agree with you (on both points, really - the aggression in this thread is unpleasant).

However, I think it's worth bearing in mind that context is important. A good idea in a simple, limited game (like 5E) may not be a good idea in a complicated, option-rich game (like PF). It's kind of the mirror image of those treating proficiency bonus as BAB. The concepts are similar, but not identical and analysing "differences" based purely on that between the two systems isn't particularly fruitful.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
chbgraphicarts wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Quote:
(he says, as though 1st and 2nd Edition didn't contain/create 95% of those broken spells pretty much exactly as they were, anyway...)

Yes. And despite massively changing the entire underlying system, the spell descriptions were left virtually unchanged. THIS IS EXACTLY THE PROBLEM.

So thanks for reiterating my point, even if it seems lost on you.

It seems "lost" because your point isn't a point - it has no weight whatsoever when actually examined without 5-inch thick Nostalgia Goggles on.

The system since 1st edition has always been horrendously skewed towards casters..

That's what he's saying - he thinks they should have adjusted spell power and spell levels when 3.0 came out because of the early edition caster-martial disparity. Presuming they intended to create a balanced game.

If he was looking with "nostalgia goggles" he wouldn't be arguing for more change than actually occurred, would he?


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 just received new PoD samples a few weeks ago, and though paper quality has improved since the last time I looked into it, I'm still not happy with the print quality.

Thanks, vic. I'm also glad you're still keeping an eye on it. Getting the Player Guides printed is something of a pain.

Cheers.


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

How do you all approach the Christmas tree effect?

It seems to me that PFTales protagonists don't continually "upgrade" equipment, nor are they festooned with trinkets - rather they each have one or two significant items. This is very much to my tastes, however it doesn't really seem true to Pathfinder's spirit. Are the minor items all there in the background, just not emphasised perhaps?


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

Am I the only one that likes the fact that a lvl 1 orc can't really threaten a lvl 20 adventurer? I presume that by level 20 I'm pretty much a battle demi-god so I should be plowing through regular ole normal level 1s by the dozen.

5e is more grounded where an band of vanilla kobolds can threaten you at most levels if there are enough of them and you are generally poor. Pathfinder has you level into superheros and you bet Bruce Wayne dollars. And that's fine, they do different things. Although I'm still more into Pathfinder because really if I wanted any kind of bounded threat kind of game I'd just play or run a game that happens within the boundries of a couple of levels. Actually in general I prefer Pathfinder because overall I can do whatever kind of game I want and more options like Unchained and third party stuff keeps pumping out more ways to have drastically different kinds of gameplay.

I like a lot of things about 5e but I can't really say bounded accuracy is one of them. I guess it works out for the context of 5e but so often I feel like I have no breathing room for modularity and leveling feels like nothing.

I'm going to have to agree with some of the 5e Fighter points. People complain about the fighter not doing anything that's not combat in Pathfinder but I'm currently on my 6th level as Fighter in 5th edition and if not for the character's fluff the character would be boring as crap.

I love 5E fighters. I'm on about my fifth, I think.

I think your first point is the crux of the matter - bounded accuracy is a game where you don't get much better than you start (and where experts are not so far ahead of novices). If you don't like that limited progression, you won't like BA. If you do want that kind of game, unbounded systems like Pathfinder won't do it for you (unless you impose limits and run a game within a few levels).


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

Grabbed a copy. Thanks, dale.

I realise it's early days, but a hard copy (even "just" print on demand) would make this even better. Nonetheless, it's great to see this get off the ground..


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?
Basically, the numbers are limited to a specific range so that characters are "balanced" enough that things like goblins can still kill 20th level characters, that a simple skill challenge can ruin anyone that isn't a high-level rogue or bard, and Asmodeus can't bash down doors.
Part of me does kind of like that. If there was an Unchained option for that, I'd give it a try.

It facilitates some interesting stories/scenarios - the high level heroes going up against an army of orcs, for example (without having the miraculous coincidence of always meeting orcs with "just right" amount of templates/class levels).


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Kalindlara wrote:
I may be alone in my ignorance... but what's bounded accuracy?

It was a design principle of 5E. Essentially it entailed keeping bonuses and target numbers more constrained as levels advance so that the dice roll remains relevant and to avoid the binary "autofail or autosucceed" issue of high level play in 3.5 and 4E.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
memorax wrote:
The thing is to those saying don't change anything. Then why even bother buying it again. Seriously if all were going to get is 80-90% rehash with new art and organization and 10-20% if that of new material. I simply can't see the reason for purchasing it again.

Because one values new art and organisation.

If you only want to buy books with new material, it stands to reason you won't want a substantially unchanged system. The people who want minimal change are obviously not in that camp.


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

I want a second edition so that I can time how long it takes for the first "I want a third edition" thread.


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

With regard to ongoing series - one of the reasons I don't enjoy them as a reader is that I "know" they're going to survive for the next book. So when they get into dire straits, I don't really wonder if they're going to get through - just how. (The Worldwound Gambit was the only one I remember where I genuinely entertained the idea that the bad guys might win).

Do any of you ever find that as a constraint? (Like "I'd really like to kill Radovan off here, but that's unacceptable") Or are such considerations purely, 100% driven by the needs of the particular story in question?


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

It wouldn't irritate me any more, but I don't know that I'd recommend putting much effort into that.

I didn't realise you were the author and my exposure to it was purely from this thread - where it was held up as "proving grognards wrong", rather than as an attempt to define roles implicitly within the context of tactical analysis.

Personally, I think it's a good analogy and I applaud the effort to strip things down to the absolute essentials. It's the assumption of being the majority view which is what always bugs me in these debates. Attempting to claim that mantle often seems to me to be the cause of a lot of heat in these things.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
wraithstrike wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It was also being touted as proof that some people are wrong , which it clearly doesn't do.

This is what irritates me about it. It bakes in some assumptions about the game and then "proves" people wrong who don't share those assumptions. It's as bad as people who say you need a cleric - maybe to play the way they do, but that isn't the only way to play.

It baffles me that people seem so unwilling to accept that there are multiple, equally valid ways to play. "What pathfinder widely calls for" is a nebulous concept that says more about the analogy designer's style of play than about the game.

I don't think he is trying to say you are playing the game wrong. He is saying "this is a lesson on in game tactics". However he never says if you do not use this method you are a moron. It is basically advice, not a speech on "do it my way or you are an idiot" speech.

I didn't say he called people who disagree a moron - I don't think the piece was abusive, merely dismissive. However, my point of irritation is not about tone, it's when people claim a particular style of play as "normal", "expected", "the way it's meant to be played", etcetera.

For example (near the end):

"the truths you illustrated are complete bunk because in my games (insert houserule/cornercase/oddgmstyle/headless clown here)

That's nice. If those truths don't apply to you then chances are you are doing something different than what pathfinder widely calls for. Nothing wrong with that but it doesn't make them less true for the overall game as written and typically played."

It doesn't matter how many games they play in, nor how many people on the internet agree with them, nobody is in a position to declare what a "usual" game of pathfinder looks like.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
It was also being touted as proof that some people are wrong , which it clearly doesn't do.

This is what irritates me about it. It bakes in some assumptions about the game and then "proves" people wrong who don't share those assumptions. It's as bad as people who say you need a cleric - maybe to play the way they do, but that isn't the only way to play.

It baffles me that people seem so unwilling to accept that there are multiple, equally valid ways to play. "What pathfinder widely calls for" is a nebulous concept that says more about the analogy designer's style of play than about the game.


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

It's contentious in the same sense that the "theory" of a round earth is contentious.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Jester David wrote:
Pan wrote:
Steve Geddes wrote:
I think if the WotC CEO managed to license the TTRPG and have it more successful than when it was produced in-house, he'd point out what a successful strategy that licensing decision was.
This is exactly my experience with CEOs. They care more about making the right moves for the company and making it successful anyway possible. Often that includes admitting failures and pointing out their good decisions in response.

Good CEOs yes. The CEO at WotC doesn't appear to be good:

http://www.glassdoor.ca/Reviews/Wizards-of-the-Coast-Reviews-E4718.htm

Bad CEOs take credit for decisions that work well also.


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

I think if the WotC CEO managed to license the TTRPG and have it more successful than when it was produced in-house, he'd point out what a successful strategy that licensing decision was.


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

I think it's worth bearing in mind that "splitting the fan base" is an economic concern, in this context. The concept wasn't referring to people fighting over which edition is best, but the production of two products which were only of interest to half+a bit of the fan base.

That's why the campaign settings are a better example of the issue than the different editions. They were targetting different markets (at least to some degree) with AD&D vs BECMI. With Forgotten Realms and Planescape, they were essentially cannibalising their own sales in presenting them as two separate options, rather than as two elements of the same bigger picture.

That doesn't mean that the issue isn't entangled - but Paizo producing PF2 and no longer supporting PF isn't an example of "splitting the fan base" in the sense it was initially used. Sure, another company may step in to fill a demand (like Paizo did on 4E's release), but that's a separate, if related, phenomenon.


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

Are you kidding me?

No way the price increase across ALL titles is gonna stand!

You can't really judge the reasonableness of a price rise without also looking at the frequency. It's been a few years since the last revision (which was marginal).

I'm not trying to persuade you to change your mind (there'll nearly always be a drop in demand when you increase the price of anything).

I don't think it's right to consider the magnitude without also looking at how often prices are changed. With the exception of the pawns, these increases represent a pretty negligible increase over the last...three? four?...years.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
Drizzt! Demons! Underdark! How original! Never done before! What's next, Elminster vs. spawn of Bhaal in Sword Coast? Or maybe ... evil white dragons in Icewind Dale? ;)

maybe we'll get against the giants next.


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

Awesome, thanks! Some people have even more time for idle speculation than me. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Male Wood Elf Cleric 2 (life domain) - HP (15/15) AC 16(18) Init +2 Perc +5 Str +2 Dex +2 Con +1 Int +0 Wis +5 Cha +1

In the spirit of more feedback: Being a relative PBP newcomer, I'm not sure what's "standard" or not, but I apprecite the pace you are setting - glossing over the minutiae of who does what when and so forth and then pausing at the significant decision/interaction moments. The games I have been in (several years ago) often stalled out in decision making time as everyone waited to consult with everyone else.

I much prefer waking up to eight posts where stuff has happened than two posts of:

1. suggested action.
2. what do you think?


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:
Vic Wertz wrote:

And, as I've mentioned before, there was one particular campaign setting (which I won't name) that, if we put its name on the cover of the magazine, it would guarantee that we'd sell fewer copies of that issue that the issues before or after it, even when more than 2/3 of the magazine had nothing to do with that setting.

*eyes bug out*

Dang. I hadn't heard that before.

I've been trying to gather clues since I first heard this mentioned - my guess is Dark Sun or Eberron. Dark Sun would be my A Priori guess, but Vic's reluctance to name it made me lean towards Eberron. (It's possible I have way too much time on my hands, of course...).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Drejk wrote:
Application instead of proper pdf/e-reader file to read? Meh. What the hell is with that obsession with turning to apps for things to read instead of just reading them? Not everyone want to crap his computer with tons of unwanted programs.

I don't really understand this stuff, but it shows up in an app called "newsstand" which I'm pretty sure was always there. As far as I know, I didn't have to add a program or anything (and now I'm subscribed, I presume a new issue will just download for me every couple of months).


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

Thanks for posting it. Fingers crossed he is doing some D&D stuff - ive always liked his game design comments.


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

My actuary reckons I'm likely to live until 2064, so if you guys can keep the hard copies coming until the 70s, I'd appreciate it.


2 people 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'm not sure it's a poor business decision so much as a misalignment of expectations - paizo wanted to include some pictures for which they didn't have perfect images - there's an editorial trade off between only including flawless images and covering a wider spectrum of WAR's work.
I could accept that, if some of the problem images weren't ones that Paizo holds the rights to. They manage to print out the Core Rulebook cover at a much larger size on the cover of every Core Rulebook, and it doesn't have the problems it had in Visions of WAR.

This is one of your points I agree with.

Nonetheless, "cash grab" in my mind speaks to motive. I don't think paizo put that book out to make much money (including the special edition). I think they put it out to celebrate Wayne Reynolds work over the years. The issue (whatever it is - I genuinely haven't noticed it) is editorial, in my view - not ethical.

People regularly claim to want art books and regularly decide not to buy them - paizo have oodles of better avenues for grabbing cash than this, if they want them.


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

The flaws or otherwise of that book are somewhat subjective. (I don't agree the images are poor quality, though some of kthulhu's other points seem valid). Erik's reply seemed reasonable to me:

Quote:

Folks,

Thanks for your feedback on the image quality in this book. In many cases, the images in question are very old, and came directly from Wayne. When choosing between not having a piece of art at all, or using the best quality of image available to us, we chose to err on the side of inclusion, particularly if the image quality was not distracting.

Some of the pages listed [in the discussion thread], for example, are either sketches in the first place or take a fair amount of study to even notice that there is a problem.

Others perhaps should not have been included, or we should have worked harder to find a higher-resolution image, but in our opinion these images are very much in the minority.

Each customer will have to take a look at the printed book and make the decision for themselves as to whether this precludes a purchase or not.

I'm not sure it's a poor business decision so much as a misalignment of expectations - paizo wanted to include some pictures for which they didn't have perfect images - there's an editorial trade off between only including flawless images and covering a wider spectrum of WAR's work.


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

I found these comments interesting. Whilst not contradictory, they seem to be pointing in different directions, to me:

Quote:

Sessions that have a lot of different scenes, progress, and culminate in completing a significant story arc provide the thrill to a degree, except for the knowledge of how rare they are, and once they are done what usually follows is a lot of non-culminating sessions, fragmented pieces of a long, larger story.

That is, remember when we were kids... we would get together and whatever the story was that night would actually finish?!

Quote:
Story-twists happening faster rather than slower; "big reveals" happening weekly rather than monthly or annually. It just feels like modern players need more closure than in the past, more progress than in the past, more content than in the past...

I wonder if your newer players now want just what you did as a kid?

I may be projecting, but perhaps you've slipped into the mindset that long, complicated story arcs or trying to capture grand themes, spanning several sessions is "better" than simple stories which can be told in a few sessions. Those quotes above sound to me that what you're looking to recapture and what your players today enjoy are essentially the same thing - perhaps an overarching story throughout the campaign isnt the best bet and you should rather focus on an episodic, site-based adventure approach, for a while.

FWIW, we alternate DMs as well and initially adopted the same structure you have, but we found that week-on, week-off really detracted from the experience. Now we play one campaign for a few months, then another for a few months - in our experience, it makes it easier (for the players in both) to keep in character, follow the plot and retain 'clues'. I mention that because, as one of the DMs, I never noticed - but another player-in-both eventually worked out that it had sucked the fun out of both campaigns for him


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

I leave it up to the player. In my current game, the player has a little stack of tokens he marks off through the battle, then he randomly determines (somehow) what proportion he can collect. I've also had a player who bought a hundred arrows early on and every now and again rounded down his gold pieces "for arrows".

I think as DM the important point is to make it fun for the player, not for you. If they enjoy resource management to that level, track arrows. If they don't, let them account for it however they like. It's not really going to impact on your enjoyment as DM, is it (surely you've got much more to worry about)? So why stress?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Joe Hex wrote:
Zhangar wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
As capitalism goes, Paizo is about as benign as it gets.

Except when they offer a limited edition of an art book when they know that quite a few pieces of the art have problems.

It's hard for me to see that as anything but a blatant cash grab.

I have that book, and none of the art in my copy has issues with it. I've examined the specific pages I've seen been complained about and been literally unable to see the issue.

I guess some of the books had printing errors? But it's definitely not the entire run.

Where can I find this art book, of which you speak? Paizo has some of the most fun art I've ever seen in an RPG. Cash grab or not, I'd love to have that!

Here is the standard version.

Theres also a limited edition version.

Note that it's the art of Wayne Reynolds, not limited to just what he's produced for paizo. I too had no issue with the quality of the pictures. Several people (with better eyeseight than me) found "pixelation" and other flaws in some images. There's some discussion about it in that first thread (including a little bit as to what the issue actually was, but not a lot).


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


Steve Geddes wrote:


It's probably on mine, somewhere. :)

What I meant is that I wonder if they now require you to advise "in app purchases", even if it's free. As I say - I subscribed and there was no mention of a cost.

Perhaps, being more cynical, there's going to be a period of no cost so people get in the habit of checking it and then they'll introduce a nominal charge per issue "to meet costs we've been covering up until now".

I would say that the subscribe option means you will receive the mags which you will then have to pay a fee to get full access to each issue.

According to them: "Dragon+ is indeed free, and our plan is to keep it that way... Yes, the content will be free but there are ads that point to our products and partner products."

So, you get free content and advertisement for other D&D related material that does cost.

The quote is off an article on EN World about Dragon+. From WotC.

Ah, cheers. Well fingers crossed the ads aren't too annoying.

I did like the way they were basically quarantined in their own articles for this issue, at least - so I could skip the ads for stuff I have no interest in, but look into the ones I do. (I didn't know a spell deck was planned for the elemental evil spells, for example).

1 to 50 of 1,161 << 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.