Everyone should have received a pm spelling out what requests I was able to meet. As I said in those, I'll be shipping everything out over the coming week.
If you thought you were going to get a pm from me and didnt, let me know in case something slipped through the cracks.
Send me a pm if there's something you like even if you haven't been around here much - there's a lot of "popular" requests and some less so. If you want something nobody else asks for I'm happy to send it your way.
I just wanted to be clear that, in the case of competing demand, I'd be favouring those who I recognise from their posts here, that's all. :)
You could just ignore DR couldn't you? The PCs will presumably be doing less than "expected" damage anyhow without magical boosts (to both hit rolls and damage), so they've kind of got a hit point boost anyhow.
One thing I've done is to allow people to ignore some of their opponent's DR equal to the PCs level. That way heroes are still heroes but its more intrinsic to them, rather than their gear. (Note that when it comes to rules I favour "quick and easy" over "balanced and realistic" so this might be a very poor low magic rule. It worked okay for us though).
Err...Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you meant that you liked playing in a game where the encounters were randomly selected from a list of preprepared scenes rather than where the scenes were just determined by the DM. I wondered how you would tell (since having a preference between two things which you cant distinguish between seems a little odd to me).
I'm not challenging you, I just dont get what you mean.
Ah. I dont read PDFs very well, sadly. I thought you could just keep retraining it until you reached your maximum.
Sure (that's true of just about anything really). But I mean how do you practically distinguish between them - what would suggest to you that this was a random selection from a list or the scene the DM had decided was going to happen?
We like the tension argument so when we play PF, the spell casting player rolls their targets saving throw. When the monsters cast spells, the player rolls their own.
Well, I've never spoken to them about it, but I have read posts by Sean where he's basically nailed my view/experience far more succinctly and eloquently than I could have. I also think the Beginner Box is a sign they really get "people like me" (a view reinforced when I read the transitions document).
I'm impressed that Pathfinder has done such a spectacular job of capturing the 3.5 fans (who I consider to be non derogatory "system nuts" by default) whilst simultaneously keeping people like me interested, even if not totally sold. It seems to me they must have a pretty broad view of the market to be capturing both extremes.
Fair enough - sorry for hassling so soon (I didnt remember it being that recently). I guess I've only just started to notice the recent price increases, plus have made a few more nobleknight purchases.
I'm glad to hear there's a kind of 'annual review'. Hopefully it will make sense for you to broaden the options eventually. Cheers.
I know you've looked into it before and there were a variety of issues not immediately obvious to us, however I wondered if you've recently looked into the viability of providing a DHL option for us overseas customers?
Since the recent hike in USPS pricing, I've noticed a substantial difference when I order from Nobleknightgames who offer both options. Ordering from them, the various USPS shipping options to Australia are typically around the same as yours. What they call "DHL express" is substantially cheaper (my most recent shipping charge being around $50 compared with around $100 from the USPS option). It also provides tracking for international customers and is noticeably quicker.
I appreciate there's a bigger picture re volume pricing and so forth - presumably you get a cheaper USPS domestic rate given the amount of international shipping you do, but given the disparity has grown so much, I wonder if it's worth looking into again?
It's not a dealbreaker for me, obviously but there have been one or two times when I've bought from Nobleknightgames rather than paizo. If I'm looking at one book as fast as possible, I can usually get it cheaper and quicker from them, which is a shame.
Damocles Guile wrote:
Not really. If you read all his posts on this topic, rather than just that snippet i quoted, it's more "Please keep giving us feedback. Please keep telling us what you want. But in this one, specific, very unique circumstance - please understand that we can't do it and that the mere presence of requests for it is a risk. Now that you know the answer and the reasons for it, we'd really like you to keep your enthusiasm in check. Otherwise people skimming the boards will think that we sometimes do these compilations as a matter of course, or that its likely to happen again eventually."
That comment was addressed to a bunch of us who'd been batting that specific idea around over a bunch of threads, it's not a statement of general policy regarding customer feedback pertaining to all their products.
One of the few things I actually dislike about Golarion is the presence of world spanning organisations (pathfinders, red mantis, apsis consortium, etcetera). In my mind that does run counter to the "PCs are the heroes" schtick paizo generally try to convey. However, it's easy enough to deemphasise those organisations, to downplay their reach and effectiveness, or to assume that they are all engaged in perpetual, finely balanced struggles with rivals.
Doug's Workshop wrote:
Yeah, I forgot to mention that. The slower nature of most modern RPG combats is another reason I don't really favour them in pathfinder. With the older games its easier to chew through a round in a few minutes, even with lots of combatants. That makes random encounters less of a drag/distraction from the story.
Hi paizo people
I'm presumably worrying needlessly, but I have both a deluxe and a regular comics sub. Am I right in thinking that I'll get one copy of all the regular covers with two copies if the paizo.com exclusives for both the regular series and the more limited story arcs?
I figured that's likely to happen, but recall some oddities when the double sub was set up, so thought I'd raise it ahead of time.
I have a feeling I didn't explain myself well. I didn't mean that professional rpg designers just sit around playing all day, nor that its easy to get a Playtest session happening. What I meant is that they know what kinds of feedback to give. They know the rules well enough to anticipate where problems are going to arise.
If you want someone to look over your product, Sean Reynolds is going to give you better feedback than me. Hands down. Admittedly this bit of your post:
"Every playtest group also needs a handful of village idiots, the guys who'll read rules and go "OK, what does that mean?" You know, the player in your group who you swear never reads the rules based on what they do."
Is a pretty good description of our group. Nonetheless, although its no doubt useful to know, the way the rules read to the clueless isn't that important, surely. One of the joys of playing the way we do is that obscure or contradictory rules make very little difference to us. We won't get it right anyway, so we just skim read them and do something roughly in line with the book.
A gift card sub where the user set the amount to be bought and converted to credit each month would be great. (Even better if they could also select the day the transaction happened).
Okay, I had no idea about that - that's just silly! I'm sure someone, somewhere can save money by fixing that..
And with the goblins 5-issue series it's no doubt going to get even worse for you guys. Good luck! :p
I suspect their Playtest sessions are both more effective and efficient, as well.
One of my degrees included a large chunk of philosophy. It was essentially nothing but argument (and the non philosophy stuff was maths). My later academic study (accounting) included a bunch of law. Both of those involve the ability to argue positions you disagree with, so perhaps my perspective is unusual.
Nonetheless, one often sees people overly confident in their own position. A little self doubt is a good thing, in my view. It helps avoid the situation you often see where people continue to pursue an obviously lost argument.
It's not saying that, at all. It's pointing out that one can become an expert even in a field where the basics are easy to pick up. Like rpg design.
Im not telling you not to rock the boat and it has nothing to do with egos. In fact, I specifically said that people who disagree with the developers should argue their case and challenge them. The admonition to assume you're most likely the one in the wrong is simple statistics - if the person you're arguing your hobby with does it for a living you're probably the one who has missed something.
I was responding to this:
"(because the field rarely displays the depth necessary for there to be "experts" in the sense you are using the term in),"
It doesn't need "depth". Bridge is a far simpler game than any RPG, yet the professionals are almost archetypal experts.
You can get better and become an expert in just about anything. The fact it's easy to learn the basics doesn't imply it's impossible to be an expert.
I don't think it works very well in pathfinder, although I like them in AD&D/etcetera. In games where gold is worth experience, wandering monsters are to be avoided as an unprofitable resource drain. It basically stops you from walking around the dungeon checking for traps every ten feet and requires a little more judicious thought in that regard.
In games (like PF) where defeating monsters has more (relative) reward, there's less reason to avoid them, meaning they lose their motivational value.
RPG designers are better at designing RPGs than insurance adjusters. They are worse statisticians than actuaries are.
You cannot compare sports (which are based off physical performance) to writing up a set of rules (which is based off mental factors), Ciretose. That's not even comparing apples to oranges. It's more like comparing apples to freaking grenades. Also, name some examples of those incompetent people shouting about their poorly planned out ideas instead of just stating something with nothing to back it up. Because really, I have seen people who do a better job than Paizo ever has and who never got paid for it (or have their works ignored because it's 3PP), Kirth being one of them, while you are here claiming these people are a myth.
I think it's about percentages. I mentioned Einstein doing great physics as a patent clerk and I think that's a relevant analogy. The amateurs might come up with a new theory of gravity, but mostly they're trying to build perpetual motion machines. Mostly - the output of the professional is going to be better than the output of an amateur, even though there are some hobby geniuses and some lousy professionals.
I think the lesson there is that, if you're an amateur in a debate with a professional, you should give them a serious listening to. Don't stop arguing your case, but operate from the position that you're probably wrong rather than the expert.
FWIW, Ashiel and I have pretty much worked out our misunderstanding via pm. I think it's fair to say we were having two different conversations.
Yeah, they all have an impact but its not that huge (not at the death of a god level, anyhow). Jade regent is a pretty significant political event too.
** spoiler omitted **
What distinguishes golarion (IMO) is that in general, if the players win there's no dramatic change to the status quo. I don't really mind having huge negative consequences for failure but i dont want it to happen if its imposed by fiat (in a "...uh oh the god of magic is dead!.....again!" Kind of way).
I like this list except for number 9 (Golarion always seems like it has high magic everywhere to me).
I'd replace that with:
9*. There arent many heroes beyond the PCs (and no widely operating 'good guys'). If you uncover a world threatening problem, you'd better do something about it - running to get help isnt going to work.
Fair enough. We're definitely going to approach these kinds of discussions from a different perspective (I think balance, consistency and completeness are not terribly important traits in a ruleset, for example - I'm willing to bet that view wouldnt sit well with you).
I would suggest we hold off on applying labels of foolish or 'understood by a nine year old' as it's hard not to take those things personally. If we engage again, I'll try and make wordier posts - I hardly went to much effort to be complete with rather a lot of 'reading between the lines' being implied. Sorry about that.
If there was something other than just being contrary and trying to muddy any sort honest conversation that you were getting at then I'm all ears. Otherwise I'm just going to leave this conversation alone. Getting hammered by other posters for nothing leaves a bad taste in the mouth - especially when you're just trying to converse about not only your hobby but your community.
Gee how would you have responded if I'd called you foolish or suggested you lacked the comprehension of a nine year old?
At least, that's basically what I took from your posts. Unless there was some sort of point you were driving at. It's very possible I missed it through the many posts grossly misrepresenting my commentary, or acting like I shot the Paizo golem or something.
Misrepresenting? I thought this was your position:.
You think that Paizo do a fine job, but that they occasionally drop the ball. They're only human after all and everyone makes the odd error from time to time. There are various desirable features a ruleset (or subsystem) should have and there are many examples where the amateur fans of the game have produced something which is superior (by that measure) than the 'officially sanctioned' product of the comparable time.
Is that wrong?
Oh - you were talking to me about that "Paizo fanboi" stuff? Pathfinder isnt even my preferred roleplaying game so no, I wasnt objecting to any post you made suggesting that someone else might have done something better. I was objecting to any suggestion that quality was objective - I thought you subsequently agreed with that?.
My point has always been that, if you're an amateur, you should approach disagreements with the professionals from the point of view that you're probably missing something rather than from the perspective that they are.
I think it would be silly to say quality doesnt exit.
Mileage potentially varying is precisley what I mean by there being no objective measure of quality.
I think there's no doubt that amateurs can write better rules than professionals. My only dispute with what you've written here is the word "often". Einstein did a lot of great physics work as a patent clerk - yet there's a reason that physicists and mathematicians discard (without reading) all the unsolicited submissions from amateurs claiming to have unified the forces, proved that all perfect numbers are even or similar..
In general (I claim without argument) amateurs are usually worse than those who do it for a living. The stakes are so high for those whose livelihood depends on it whereas there's nothing but internet-pride on the line for the amateur. Potential homelessness is a decent motivator.
What that means is that, if you find yourself as an amateur consistently disagreeing with the professionals, you should factor in a serious dose of self-doubt. You might be Einstein, but you could be the nutter with the perpetual motion machine.
Your measure of quality or not quality seems to only extend so far as dollar signs are concerned, which means that we disagree on fundamental levels and there's not much point in discussing it further.
That's not my measure of quality. My claim is that there is no objective measure of quality.
The idea that sales records are an indication of the quality of a product is an extremely faulty premise and is often more reliant on marketing and financial backing than the actual quality of the product.
Because those of us who buy books are too "foolish" to purchase what we want and instead just purchase what we're told to?.
What you value in a ruleset (consistency, balance, clarity, etcetera) is not what I value. You say "actual quality" as if that's some kind of objective measure, but there's no such thing.
I thought I'd post here rather than sending lots of individual messages - I am receiving people's pms. I'm just not going to respond to each individually until the end of the week. Then I'll close the offer and distribute books appropriately. Cheers.
The audience for RPG rules are people who play RPGs, not the hardcore ones who post on a forum. (Presuming your 9/10 statistic was accurate)..
"Lots of people on the internet agree with me" is not actually substantiation or we'd be outlawing vaccinations.
It is an unsubstantiated claim. It's my opinion. (I was rewording it, since it seemed like you'd misunderstood my point).
I didn't address the follow up point because I have no idea if it was better. How did you determine that? The only objective measure seems to be sales.
You've actually done the thing being compared. That was the point. Coming up with a few house rules is the equivalent of assembling a kit computer - not being a computer technician.