Steve Geddes's page

Me? I'm relatively happy to be a supporter of the US (in a "I can't think of anything better" kind of way), I don't intend this as particularly strident criticism, merely a comment on the ease with which we justify things by "our team".

I think it's more important to recognise propaganda by one's own side than by the opposition, that's all.

I'd personally rather it not be the "Numeria plus Planets" AP.

I have some APs I like and others I dont. In general, part of what really catches my attention is when an AP has a tight focus. The restriction of scope is a significant way the AP is defined as a cohesive whole, in my view.

Nope I sure don't. Sanctions are a b#@+$, though.

Yeah, you guys have lots of power. I don't really object to "Rogue state" meaning "A state which doesnt behave in the way that the strongest powers want them to". But that's hardly the image conjured in people's minds by the term.

.
I think the concept of some over-arching "international law" is a misnomer. It sounds nice, but no actual state is bound by those "laws" unless they want to be (Did you know that the US was ordered to pay reparations to Nicaragua by the International Court of Justice? The US's response was to just declare that they wouldnt be bound by its dictates).

Steve Geddes wrote:

I see your point, although I personally read it very differently to you.

My understanding of the thinking was not "Make sure the players always succeed" but rather "Make sure you know what's going to happen if they fail - that has to be fun too".

I think the point was to avoid the issue of failing some critical roll and the adventure grinding to a halt - not to ensure players always win. (At least, we've never played it like that).

I still think what you are suggesting, (which is all about point of view and preference) is that to me, that's a lot like playing the game with "god mode" always on. I want to fail. Maybe the princess dies. Maybe I don't reach that bomb in time and the city is destroyed. Whatever. From there, I agree the game doesn't have to end.

But that's different than every time I fail to reach that bomb, another NPC steps in and defusses it, and now I own them a favor, or I'm going to take a penulty on my next Diplomacy and all attack rolls for that combat, but the princess is still alive. That's what 4E pushed, at least in my opinion. And I don't like that. Once you realize it, it really makes all your actions inconsequential.

Yeah, I wouldnt like that either, so if that's what you think 4E was pushing, I'd agree with you that it should be rejected. It's not how we've been playing/reading those guidelines. If the PCs fail, bad things are definitely going to happen.

.
You mentioned "early 4E" and I wonder if this was partly influenced by the lousy skill challenges they put out early on. They certainly seemed to me to often consist of 'Make lots of skill checks and you'll either succeed or you'll have a fight and then succeed". In my view, they work much better as junctions in the narrative - failure has to be failure, not just "more expensive success".

If one were a nation that belonged to a council of nations, but they contributed more than everyone else, both financialy and in man power, and even host their headquarters in one's country rent-free, does that make them the rogue state, or the baseline state that others are considered rogue against?

It depends on what value you assign to the UN doesnt it? If it's a lousy organisation then being the prime mover and shaker doesnt really enhance your esteem.

.
I think the point is that nations are, by definition, not bound by normative standards of behaviour. Any putative nation which is subordinate to some higher law is probably not really a nation - rendering 'rogue state' to be something of an empty label. I dont think Iran care that the US doesnt consider them part of the "good guys club", do you?

I am not sure I agree. It sounds nice, on the surface, but I persoanlly hate it when I, as a player, know that what I rolled, or what stats I have do not matter at all. I was going to win anyway, it's just an illusion.

To be honest, I would rather have the possibility to fail, just like I would rather have the possibility to have my character die. It adds to, not subtracts from the fun. That does seem like good beginner DM advice, but that's where it stops, in my opinion. Failure can be significant without the DM needed to scrap an adventure, which I don't think 4E handled at all.

I see your point, although I personally read it very differently to you.

My understanding of the thinking was not "Make sure the players always succeed" but rather "Make sure you know what's going to happen if they fail - that has to be fun too".

I think the point was to avoid the issue of failing some critical roll and the adventure grinding to a halt - not to ensure players always win. (At least, we've never played it like that).

Steve Geddes wrote:

What is "International Law"?

This one is easy...

What is called international law is mainly a body of international treaties, most of them sponsored by the United Nations.

The USA didn't subscribe to most of those about rules of war, or liability for war crime, which is perfectly their right but has a heavy diplomatic cost. They also are in the habit of ignoring those they did sign when convenient (like the Geneva convention about POWs). They are not alone in this, but it's quite rare among other law-driven democracies.

So if a rogue state is

"...a nation that fragrantly ignores international law whenever it feels like it..."

Doesn't that make every state a rogue state? They sign or don't sign by choice, don't they? And they follow those treaties or don't by choice (they can always withdraw).

I don't think it means anything - its a term of propaganda or PR, at best, IMO. The good guys exercise their sovereign rights, the bad guys are rogue states (or imperialists, depending on ones politics).

What is "International Law"?

I don't know if it matters much, but there is a subscriber discount for back issues - you get 15% off both the PDFs and the hardcopies. You also can't subscribe to the PDF only (though I suspect I may have misunderstood that part of your post).

Irrespective of actual calculations, though - the principle is that the better they make the deal for latecomers, the less valuable it is to begin your subscription now. They never want anyone to postpone subscribing so they make sure it's always a super deal and that nobody ever finds themselves to have been better off if they had waited. That necessarily limits the deals they can offer to people who werent subscribed when an item was released.

Offering some discount from here on might also annoy those of us who were latecomers and who went back and bought PDFs of those issues we'd missed (based on the policy of 'no free PDFs for latecomers'). It wouldnt bother me, but I can imagine people crying foul over such a policy shift.

I, unfortunately, have to agree and say that I do not read the fiction. I read just about everything else in a given volume but just can't bring myself to read only one chapter of a novella at a time. For me it's not that the fiction wouldn't add to the over product or that I don't like short format fiction, simply that I don't like reading only one of portion of it said story and then have to wait a month for the next short installment. I think even the most patient person would be driven mad by immersing themselves in a good story and then having to basically watch the characters and events transpire under a strobe light that pulsed once every three weeks. I just find it frustrating.

Personally, I wait until the AP is completed and read the fiction then. It does mean you have to wait, but at least you're not left hanging for a month at a time - you're just six months behind the latest story.

They still produce eberron stuff but most of their campaign support is PDF via subscription, rather than hardcover. Forgotten realms seems to be the only setting for which they are still producing hard copies. (I believe one book a year is part of their agreement with Ed greenwood, but that's not based on anything other than inter gossip).

As I understand things there is practically no chance of the fiction being dropped.

Partly because there are people who like it but mainly because a page of fiction is easier to produce than a page of adventure (for the company - I mean no disrespect to any fiction authors). They're already stretched to the limit there, so freeing up half a dozen pages wouldn't result in half a dozen extra pages of adventure.

A mega dungeon is my first preference, however part of the reason I want paizo to do one is that I want to see a decent story complete with roleplaying, intrigue, etcetera but set within that uniquely rpg environment.

I'm certainly not meaning a "monster hotel" with an endless series of rooms and corridors full of monsters. With adventurers kicking down doors, killing them and taking their stuff. I think there are several of those out there already (although granted none specifically for pathfinder).

Shattered star isn't what I'm looking for in that regard either (nor other dungeon heavy APs like age of worms). In my view, a mega dungeon isn't just about being indoors a lot. It's about miles of interconnected tunnels and chambers, interesting factions and rivals vying for control of different regions.

It's not for everyone, of course, but neither were LoF, SS or some of the other "nichey" APs.

Yeah, that's what first got us into rolemaster. When 2nd edition AD&D came out we switched entirely.

Steve Geddes wrote:

Just to ensure I understand things - you said the rune giant incentive will be "tied to the booster pack case" but I presume that's more relevant to retailers than to those of us who buy through you, correct?

It's relevant to paizo.com buyers because, like the Huge Black Dragon for Heroes & Monsters, customers without Pathfinder Battles subscriptions will need to preorder a case of RotR Booster Packs, probably prior to some specific date, in order to be able to preorder a Rune Giant. Preordering a case of RotR Huge Packs does not offer the same privilege.

Cheers. I didn't fully understand - I didn't realize a full price rune giant with a case of boosters was an option.

I see. Thanks, that gives me some pondering to do.

I don't understand the attraction to Sandpoint. It's nothing special.

It's iconic, though. (even if not an actual city).

My list would only include sandpoint and Absalom.

Sounds terrific. I think the two types of case is a good solution.

Just to ensure I understand things - you said the rune giant incentive will be "tied to the booster pack case" but I presume that's more relevant to retailers than to those of us who buy through you, correct? That you're utilizing that as a subscriber bonus for those who get both cases?

If I get three cases booster packs and two cases of huge packs (via two subscriptions and a preordered booster pack case) I'll only be entitled to buy two rune giants (at 75% off), correct?

If only some wise man we all respect would drop by and remind us that edition warring is still boring and pointless. That would put a stop to it.

It's pretty easy to use Arms Law (from rolemaster) in D&D if you're interested in heavily armored foes being easy to hit and hard to damage. It also does a good job of modelling different weapons strengths against different armor types. Plus you get free critical tables (although you can simplify that if you're not interested in the random deaths).

I'd like there to be a dramatic reduction in the number of pages of rules. (Or alternatively a 'rules compendium' collecting all the rules in a simple to navigate, well indexed (hardcopy) book).

This sounds terrific. My most eagerly anticipated rpg product this year. :)

Cheers. I was just curious, of course - wondering what my new pawn subscription is going to be called. :)

They don't reprint flip mats, unfortunately (other than the basic flipmat). Although there are many of us who don't have it, there are many who do. That means there's likely to be not as strong demand for a reprint (so they'd have to print less and force their costs up or sit on a significant amount if stock for a long time and tie up capital).

I doubt they've ever said never, but in general their strategy is to put out new, similarly themed maps rather than reprint old ones.

2) they aren't branded as gamemastery...

Yeah. My question is why?

The cards use art from pathfinder products too (for example) so keeping the two lines distinct doesn't seem a big concern. The chase cards feature pathfinder rules. The harrow deck is from pathfinder. The flip mats and map packs often feature in their pathfinder products.

I dont have much to add to the title, obviously.

Any thoughts?

I also think the fudging was fine. Although be aware that there is sometimes a temptation to begin overusing it - potentially evolving into a game where the players' actions having very little consequence as it just depends on when you decide they should win or lose. I think you did well not to fudge the skeletons' rolls to make the encounter tougher, for example - sometimes you see new DMs get attached to their monsters and try to "win".

Your use of fudging was in the finale, something which should seem memorable and challenging. It was also about further plots, rather than just to 'balance luck' or something which I personally think shows the makings of a fine DM. In my view, it's all about the story and that seemed to be your focus too.

All in all, it sounds like your first session was nicely done. I also agree with you about placing the rules burden on yourself (I'm also the boardgame rules-learner in our group). It's harder work, but ultimately means those who want to learn the rules can do so at their leisure without people who are less enthused having their eyes glaze over.

Yeah. Expertise for trip, disarm, feint, etc, is stupid. Just make the INT requirement across the board and drop the feat requirements.

Doesnt that mean all fighters will now be able to do everything without needing to specialise? I can understand such a fix if you think fighters are significantly underpowered or something. Otherwise, it just seems to be exchanging an old problem for a new one.

No worries. There's no rush, clearly.

I was just wondering if I needed to get organised somewhere else. Cheers.

Thanks, cos.

You realize that every time one of you frog god people post here I am compelled to open this thread in case it's The Big Announcement?

It's been a day of false hope. :(

Opportunity.

I would have thought (clueless as I generally am in such matters) that the existence of feat taxes disadvantages nonfighters rather than fighters. The designers aren't really making fighters "chew through feats" as they are given a whole bunch of extra feats to pay for some of those with prerequisites. It just means there are some super-expensive feats that fighters will be more likely to have than other classes - this way, at least you get something semirelated when you put the effort in to learn a more valuable feat (point blank and rapid shot combine to represent a skilled archer) rather than having some of the better feats cost twice as much (or whatever alternate system you'd put in place).

It seems like a question as to how full the glass is to me.

It doesn't appear to be anything more than cosmetic, but I just changed my address and during that process was presented with a text box showing two pathfinder tales subscriptions (i only want one copy) and only one game mastery cards subscription (of which I usually get two copies).

It appears I'm due the correct items when I check my upcoming shipments, but thought I'd mention it, since it seemed a little odd.

If they're all at exactly 9000 you could just bump them up to 14000 in a one-off 'rescaling' and proceed on the slow path from there.

j b 200 wrote:

Pathfinder, as with D&D before it, is a labor of love and it's sad to see it D&D in the hands of people who don't really love it.

What I mean are the people who are making decisions about the brand that are not in the best interest of the brand or the system or the product, but what is in the best interest of the bottom line and that means producing as much product as you can, without concern for quality.

How do you reconcile that perception with their current reduced output whilst undertaking a protracted part open, part closed playtest?

Hi Paizo

This is probably the wrong forum, so please move this to wherever it should go if that's the case.

WoTC's catalog shows The Dungeon Survival Handbook as being due for release on the 15th of May. I know they've been chopping and changing their release schedule of late, but I note that this isnt showing as a preorder here.

Do you have any word on this from your distributor? Are you planning on getting it in?

Cheers

(I also struggled to find Menzoberranzan on paizo.com although that's not due out until August, so that was less surprising).

While I think that on some level it would be fun to see what the Paizo folks would do with D&D, I very much would like Pathfinder and D&D to remain separate. As it stands Paizo have done an excellent job building up the Pathfinder brand and it's going from strength to strength. I think that Golarion is great and they put out a lot of great product.

At the same time I enjoy 4E as well, it's a fun system and the game of choice for a number of my friends. I spend more on Pathfinder, but 4E gives me some options for another fun and well supported system and I expect that 5E will do the same when it comes out. It'll certainly be interesting to check it out when it arrives and it'll be fun to see Paizo respond to the move from the other big player.

Taking WotC out of the picture just removes another big player from the industry and I wouldn't want that at all.

Yeah, me neither. I like both companies' products and am really crossing my fingers that, with D&D:Next, people will begin to see WoTC as just another company like Fantasy Flight Games and so forth.

I'm on staff, and I'll comment. I can't answer any rules questions, but I will note that calling out Paizo staff by name in the thread title...is generally considered bad form.

I didnt realise that. (I'd suggest someone should have warned me but...)

If you go Rogue, swap out sneak attack and dump Str. That will do well to reduce combat capability.

Not the kind of advice you read every day on these forums. :)

Why not pick off the minnows?

I'm curious why the various advocates/idle-musers who bring up this idea as some kind of genuine business proposition* think paizo should begin with their biggest competitor? Surely it would make better business sense to pick off the smaller companies first - squeeze WoTC's market share even further and then make a move?

* presumably it's not really a scenario motivated by business considerations but rather emotional "paizo are the true heirs" kind of thoughts.

The rpg world is better off with diversity, in my opinion. 4E and PF are very different games. Golarion and the various WoTC properties are very different settings. Even if you don't like one or more of the various games/settings on offer, I think you're better off playing in a world with lots of three hundred pound gorillas rather than the old way.

Personally, I'd rather they cure cancer and abolish poverty. RPGs arent that important.

The vague reply may have been Vic avoiding becoming a free lawyer service for potential 3PP.

Personally, I think your map is substantially similar to theirs (I'm surprised that's even a question, really).

It sort of seems more polite to take it down without explicit permission rather than forcing them to make a call. (to me anyway).

That's not intended as criticism - I'm sure you're well intentioned. However, part of running a creative business is no doubt keeping control of ones creative content. What happens if they let you use the image and someone downloads it, removes the key and starts producing flip mat competitors?

EDIT: we'll that's all a little redundant then.

Steve Geddes wrote:

I find the whole charge of 'cheating' odd - it seems to me to be an implicit statement that there's a 'right way' to play. In fact, it depends on what the players (DM included) want to get out of a game. If he wants to go through the motions of playing out a part, doesnt like surprises and isnt reducing the other players' enjoyment - that's hardly a bad thing is it?

Whether or not there's a right way to play, I do believe there are wrong ways to play. For the most part, the wrong way to play is the way that contravenes your individual table's expectations and standards. If the table's expectation is that you aren't reading ahead in the module, then doing so is the wrong way to play for that table. That's an implicit assumption at the tables I run (implicit because I've frankly never encountered any player who gave the opposite impression). A player may have read something or played it in the past, but I expect them not to be doing so while playing it.

That was exactly my point:

"In fact, it depends on what the players (DM included) want to get out of a game."

I don't think one should leap to the conclusion someone is cheating if they act in a way contrary to your unstated assumptions. One should state them. It's pretty much always right to talk about things like this prior to passing judgement, in my view.

Steve Geddes wrote:

If he wants to go through the motions of playing out a part, doesnt like surprises and isnt reducing the other players' enjoyment - that's hardly a bad thing is it?

You make the assumption that he's just "playing out a part".

In my experience, it takes an extraordinary player to be able to let his character act as if he doesn't know what's coming. It takes a tremendous amount of concentration to keep yourself from subconsciously preparing for it.

And it takes even greater concentration to keep from alerting your companions of the fact that something is about to jump them.

I'm not assuming anything (and given the DM has a problem with the behavior, my view is that there's clearly a problem). Also, fwiw, I wouldn't have a problem even if they did act on their knowledge (provided it doesn't impact on the other players' enjoyment).

I was objecting to the label of cheating (via a hypothetical) nothing more.

Has Wizards ever said how much of the proceeds from this are going to the Gygax Memorial?

I don't think so but presumably not much.

Buy non random singles?

Im just curious, since im pretty sure its not due out for a while.

When you say you're "shipping the pathfinder RPG Advanced Race Guide today" do you mean sending it to the printers or that they are sending it back to you? (or something else?)

Ahh...blessed relief.

Thanks Erik. My immediate family will be grateful.

Hi Paizo

Erik kindly organised shipping my sidecart for me, given the subscriptions have been a little delayed. However, the order seems to have been stuck at 'pending' for quite some time.

Is that perhaps because there's just one item holding things up? If there's some technical glitch and things are just proceeding slowly, there's no real worries. However, if this shipment is just waiting on one item, perhaps you would be able to put the delaying item into my sidecart again and ship everything else? I'm going to be rocking back and forth in an asylum making disturbing noises if I dont get at least some substantial shipment from you guys this month.

Cheers
Steve