|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Sara Marie wrote:
If it *did*, we'd only be on about post 1200 right now.
James wasn't in on that discussion, but I was. As Erik mentioned, Big Finish wanted a primary cast of 4.
Keep in mind that our 6 iconics for Rise of the Runelords were Valeros, Seoni, Merisiel, Kyra, Ezren, and Harsk, so we wanted them to draw from that pool.
Ezren was probably the first obvious choice, as he's able to explain all the setting-specific stuff to the party (and thus to the listeners). And since he fills the spellcaster role, that reduces the utility of Seoni and Kyra in a dramatic sense, which leaves us with our four. Not to say Valeros, Merisiel, and Harsk were automatically locks at that point—they each had other things going for them. Merisiel gets to bring both "female" and "elf" to the party; Harsk being a dwarf makes for great audio, and Valeros's personality makes him an excellent choice (especially for a storyline featuring an episode entitled "Sins of the Saviors").
They have had many successful productions across a range of genres, so I'd be very hesitant to label them 'not fantasy fans.'
Upon reading the first script, it was immediately very clear to me that Mark Wright, the writer for this episode, is very much a fantasy fan—and even more specifically, he "gets" Pathfinder.
I'd love to know how this range came about though, who approached who, and what the decision not to produce it as a two disc range was based upon (I'm guessing cost and uncertainty about the saleability).
Big Finish approached us. As a Doctor Who fan and collector, I'm a regular customer at Who North America, and at Gen Con 2012, WhoNA had brought in Big Finish executive producers Jason Haigh-Ellery and Nick Briggs—also the voice of the daleks, don't ya know—as special guests, and Jason asked WhoNA's Keith Bradbury to introduce him to me at the show. Jason, Lisa, Erik and I spent several hours talking that weekend, and it was pretty much immediately clear that both Big Finish and Paizo were very interested in making this happen.
I'd really hoped for these to be two-disc sets, but Big Finish—the ones taking the most risk here—really wanted to make sure that our audience is interested before they committed to 12 CDs. I'm hopeful that if sales are good, they'll consider doubling up in the future. That said, I've been really impressed with how much they manage to pack in to each disc.
I've heard Burnt Offerings in fully finished form, and will be hearing The Skinsaw Murders soon; we've already had in scripts for 3, 4, and 5, and seen the outline for 6, and I have to say that I'm very happy with how it's turning out.
It seems that the links to the Blogs from the older Blog Discussion Threads don't work. I realize that's not really a problem on the Goblinworks.com site, but hope it can be resolved since the Guild Recruitment & Helpful Links list can only List the Discussion Threads.
I've asked Mark to look into making those references go somewhere useful on the new site.
Legally, we made the change January 1. The reasons are boring, even to me. In fact, they're so boring I couldn't even explain them without falling asleep on my keybooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooolkmmmmmmmm,,,,,,,,,
Oops—sorry about that. Nodded off just thinking about it.
Paizo is still owned 100% by Lisa and myself.
DID YOU HEAR? PAIZO PUBLISHING NO LONGER EXISTS!
I believe Ilsoari Gandethus is the only way he'll be encountered. I can say for sure that through Fortress of the Stone Giants, that is definitely true.
It remains true throughout Rise of the Runelords.
I like to think of The Sandpoint Devil as the Inside UFO 54-40 paradise planet of henchmen.
There were four places in the rulebook that told you that Advancing the Blessings Deck was part of your turn, and one place that told you it happened before your turn. We removed the contradiction.
I can see how your understanding of "start of turn" effects may have relied on that contradiction, but that's not something we want, so we do need to be more specific on that point.
I think the better solution is this:
Advance the Blessings Deck: At the start of your turn, first flip the top card from the blessings deck faceup onto the top of the blessings discard pile. Then apply any other effects that happen at the start of your turn.
All Valeros's power cares about is what the ultimate disposition of the card would be. Finish one thing before you start something else—in this case, finish doing everything that the weapon card says. At the end of all that, if the card is being discarded, then you can use his power to recharge it instead; if it's not being discarded, you can't.
There's no conflict, so no need to consult the golden rule.
We at Paizo appreciate and value the contributions of our community members. This is why we have published a Community Use Policy that allows you to spread your enthusiasm and creativity while still respecting ownership of our copyrights, trademarks, and other intellectual properties.
If you're thinking of distributing any accessories for the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, please read and follow that policy. It's not difficult to follow, and it provides legal protection for both you and for us.
We have already released a number of items into our Community Use Package that PACG fans will find especially useful. In addition to the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game Character Sheets, you'll also find high-quality images of all of the characters in the Iconics package, and you'll find high-quality logos for the Pathfinder Adventure Card Game and the Rise of the Runelords Adventure Path in the Logos package.
We will soon be releasing a full set of blank Pathfinder ACG card templates as a separate package.
Thanks for your cooperation!
I think all the attempts at rearranging here are, while well-intentioned, not actually helpful. Things currently happen in the order that we want them to happen, and the rules are pretty clear about it. The real problem is that the terms for "before/after the encounter" suggest that they might happen at a time other than the time that the rules clearly state they do happen. It's a collision with intuition, not functionality.
Right now, I'm leaning towards fixing this for S&S by simply changing "before/after the encounter" to "before/after you engage" (and, of course, defining that in the rules).
Io Stesso wrote:
On this forum I just made a complaint and asked a couple of questions, to designers (unanswered)...
Io Stesso wrote:
What *possible* answer could there be for that question?
The fact is that this game was playtested by a huge number of people, for months. Check the back of your rulebook for the giant list.
And all of those people helped us make the Pathfinder ACG a really good game—a game that a *lot* of people have called the game of the year—people who know or care not one whit about the FAQs or the revised rulebook. It's a game I'm really freaking proud of, and a game that you're insulting to my face.
As for the volume of errata, that's not on those playtesters—that's all on me, and it's *not* because the game is littered with errors—it's because of my philosophy regarding making the game better.
Complicated games that involve the interactions of hundreds of cards with each other create edge cases—it's unavoidable. (If you don't want edge cases, I suggest you stick with games with the rules complexity of Checkers.) Many publishers deal with them by issuing FAQs, but not actually changing anything in the game. I say that's not good enough—that in addition to answering the question, you have to make sure the cards or rules cover those edge cases. And that's what most of our FAQ is—covering edge cases and answering questions that most players will never ask.
Very few of the resolutions in our FAQ involve actual errors—yes, the number of errors is not zero, though I wish it were, but no *reasonable* person can expect perfection given the complexity here—and also given the fact that this is, frankly, a type of game that didn't *exist* before.
To give you some perspective, the number of unique cards in Rise of the Runelords is about the same as the number of unique Magic: The Gathering cards released in the original Alpha/Beta/Unlimited/Revised sets, plus the Arabian Nights, Antiquities, Legends, and The Dark expansions, plus all of the unique promo cards released during that time. I'm pretty confident that if you dug up all of the FAQs Wizards issued during that time (and keep in mind that they also had several revisions of the rulebook in there too), you'd find that the PACG stacks up very well. But you know what? Magic was *still* perhaps the single best card game ever designed, from the day it was released, and that would have been true even if they hadn't answered a single FAQ.
You complain that your cards are all patched up with stickers, but let me ask you this: Assuming you applied a sticker for every resolution that changed a card, what percentage of those stickers actually answer a question that *you personally asked* when playing the game? For most people, I'm confident that that percentage is going to be *tiny*. And when you then look at those cards as a percentage of the total cards, it'll be far smaller than even that. This is *not* a game that doesn't work out of the box as you say—but it *is* a game that can work better. (And so are most other games—Checkers aside.) Which is why I'm making it work better.
Sling should probably have the same update as Throwing Axe.
The Sanctuary fix has actually been superseded by two different developments that cover the situation: the clarification that summoned cards aren't part of any location deck, and the "impossible" addition to the Golden Rule. So yeah, I think I'd rather remove it from Sanctuary than add it to Enfeeble.
As for searching, I see one result when I search the forum, and two when I search this thread. Something is up—possibly as a result of the forum splitting. We'll look into it.
Io Stesso wrote:
Welcome to the boards. We have few rules here, but one of them is "don't be a jerk." You have made two posts, both of which are borderline. You don't have to like us or even agree with us, but you do have to tone down the attitude, or you will not be welcome here.
Paizo needs to own customer service/replacements. This is a Pathfinder-branded product. Your name on the tin, your skin in the game. Not my rule -- that's just how branding works. :)
Sorry, man—licensing doesn't work that way. When your Coke lamp doesn't work, who's the responsible party: Coca-Cola, or the company that actually made the lamp? Do you expect Lucasfilm to replace your Star Wars gummy fruit snacks if they taste funny? When you have a problem with your World of Warcraft credit card, do you take it up with Blizzard?
Durability is improved still an issue compared to DDM. I do get that the more brittle material used here probably holds detail better, but there is something to be said for the vinyl-like material used in DDM. You could just toss them into a bin and they simply. don't. break. I get that Hasbro has a LOT of experience making small plastic toys, but is there no way WizKids can replicate?
We don't want them to replicate that. The more rigid plastic is a *big* part of the reason why we think most Pathfinder Battles minis look better than most D&D minis, and we think that most customers will decide that any reasonable additional care required on their part will be worth it. That said, we also want to make sure that minis are not so fragile that they're broken in transit—we want WizKids to find a happy balance there.
I'll give Erik a nudge on that point!
While I am thrilled that so many of the posts since the product's release have confirmed that WizKids has corrected their paint problems for the last set, I'm very unhappy that pretty much every post on this page has the word "broken" in it, and I'm chagrined that people are happy when they're reporting "only 1 broken mini." We will be letting WizKids know that they need to focus on this issue for the next set.
With the success of the game, we've been able to move card printing to the US instead of China. The US cards are about half a millimeter shorter than the Chinese cards, though they're the same width. The difference in length is slight enough that you can't spot them on a stack unless you're trying really hard—that is, you've squared up the deck and are actively looking for a difference. Since this is a cooperative game, not a competitive one, that should not be an issue in play.
As for shuffling, if you square up the cards first and put the squared-up ends together, they should interleave just fine.
The US printer should hopefully be able to deliver more consistent color as well—there was a fair amount of color variance in the Chinese cards.
For the Character Add-On Deck, we are shipping the 2nd printing to stores, but we're still shipping the tail end of the 1st printing on paizo.com. For Adventure Deck 3, we are shipping the 2nd printing to all markets. All other PACG products are still on the first printing.
First printings have the text "Printed in China" at the end of the copyright text on the back of the box. Decks printed in the US have the text "Second Printing. Printed in USA." underneath the age warning. The second printings also include all but the most recent corrections from the FAQ.
Just those two. If you've submitted an application for the compatibility license, they are both available in a package on your My Downloads page. (And if you haven't submitted a license application, you're not allowed to use them!)
Technically, this one should be in "Overheard at the Goblinworks Office":
Goblin Fridge Nazi wrote:
Goblin Coder wrote:
Goblin Artist wrote:
Hawkmoon 269 is correct. The location has been errata'd by requiring you to display a card to explore again.
Here's a fun little peek behind the scenes at how this sort of thing happens:
Chad (looking at Captain Bulldozer's suggestion):
This would both weaken the General Store and change its flavor, to avoid something incorrectly called an infinite loop in a corner-corner-corner case that has to be intentionally invoked by the players. I’m not a fan.
Mike: The fail-storm is counter to the spirit of the game, though. I'd like to try to eliminate it. I could very easily see a situation where I need an 8 to acquire an ally on a d8 roll. I encounter, roll, fail, encounter, roll, fail, etc., and so on until I eventually succeed. That's pretty big hole to leave open.
Chad: It adds memory and opens the question of whether or not two cards of the same name count or not. These are both corner cases, but so is the original.
For what it’s worth, I call the original a corner-corner-corner because you need to encounter and fail against a non-armor, item, or weapon card that sticks around but doesn’t have any consequences for failure, but that you can eventually defeat.
If this case really bothers you, I suggest dropping back to wording like The Academy (on your first exploration), or wording like:
The first time each turn you encounter anything other than an armor, an item, or a weapon, after the exploration you may explore again.
This also weakens the General Store, but keeps the flavor and some of the mechanics that I prefer. It looks like there’s room on the card for the extra text.
Mike: That makes the card a lot worse.
Chad: True, and I said so, but it keeps the essential spirit of the card, which the forum suggestion doesn’t, it follows an existing precedent, and it avoids both the corner-case loop and the memory and copy questions.
Another new approach:
If you encounter anything other than an armor, an item, or a weapon, after the exploration you may reveal a card to explore again.
This cuts out the ability to wander empty-handed through the store, which kills the loop and is pretty flavorful. It does weaken the location, but it only hits situations that I (personally) don’t mind nerfing.
Mike: It doesn't close the loop if the only card in the deck is a boon. I can keep a card in my hand to explore as long as I keep failing rolls.
Chad: What’s your desired outcome in this situation?
Mike: My goal is to stop people from running this failure train. So I believe the goal is to limit them to either (a) explore after success or (b) explore only things they've seen. There might be a third option I'm unaware of.
Chad: Why aren’t you losing cards from your hand if you’re failing rolls?
Mike: Because you don't lose cards when you fail an attempt to acquire a boon, and you might not lose cards when you fail to defeat a monster. That's not the control we need.
Chad: If you fail to defeat a boon, it goes away. If you don’t lose card when you fail to defeat a monster, then I don’t know what monster you’re talking about. Are there actual cases where you can fail to defeat a bane, still be in a position to explore, and not have changed your hand?
The key to the loop as it’s described in the thread is that your hand is empty, so there’s no change in state from step to step. I’m willing to believe that there are other cases, but I don’t know of any.
Mike: Oh, good point.
OK, so we're down to:
So, huh. We're down to:
I'm okay with the "reveal a card" solution in that case, since the only henchman barrier that occurs in a scenario with the General Store is Poison Trap, and that actually does do damage if you fail a check against it.
I just got a new set of cards for color matching, and I'm now comfortable that DriveThru can do cards that are difficult enough to distinguish from the original. The next step is producing a file they can use (which also means producing the PDF everyone can download). I'm not comfortable committing to a timeline for that yet, but things *are* proceeding.
If you want to bash us for not handling our subscriptions as well as we should have, that's completely fair; we've made mistakes and we've learned from them. I am genuinely sorry that many subscribers didn't receive their recent shipments before the retail release date for those products (even though "getting stuff early" is not a benefit we have ever promised with our subscriptions). Paizo is dedicated to solving the problems that prevented that from happening.
For example, delaying the street date of our December releases was something we did largely to ensure that domestic subscribers have a high likelihood of getting their subscription shipment before the street date. The fact that we chose to miss a pre-Christmas release so that we can do better for subscribers should demonstrate to any reasonable person that subscription shipping issues are a *very* big deal to us, and that we're willing to do what it takes to avoid the problems we've had in the past.
So criticizing us for "hosing subscribers" *and* for doing things to benefit subscribers in the very same post? That's a pretty unfair position.
Patrick Harris @ MU wrote:
Every time I see a new "how do I block someone" thread I am saddened because for whatever reason you guys just won't implement this simple, basic function that makes Internet communication so delightful.
And whenever I see one I am saddened that people want one.
My experience has only been with 3 or 4 players max and so I feel like I miss out on lots of locations that only enter play when you have 5-6 players.
Don't worry—the locations slotted in for higher levels thus far will be slotted in for lower levels later in the AP. That is to say, if you play the entire AP, there are no locations that you'll only see if you have 5 or 6 players.
I will buy Chronicle of the Righteous, Champions of Purity, Distant Worlds, or Cerulean Seas: Beasts of the Boundless Blue for the first twelve posters that want them
Mark Moreland wrote:
Anything that was filmed on video or that has only a 16mm transfer source won't gain anything from being on blu-ray....
Not strictly true, at least for buyers of NTSC DVDs like you and I...
With the exception of the TV Movie*, every Doctor Who episode made starting with The Enemy of the World (1968) right on through to The Next Doctor (2008) used a standard that potentially offers more resolution than our US DVD transfers**. The classic series episodes during that period used 625-line PAL (which actually has 576 lines of picture content), and the modern series episodes during that period used 576i digital video. NTSC DVDs offer 480 lines of picture content.
The new Series 1–7 Blu-Ray Gift Set includes 1080p upconversions from the 576i episodes, so even through those episodes weren't shot in HD, those Blu-Rays are able to reveal the full resolution of the source material, which the US DVDs do not.
*The TV movie used 525-line NTSC, which has 483 lines of picture content, so the US DVD gives you pretty much all you're going to get.
**That potential would not exist for episodes where the original master has been lost and the best surviving source did not capture the full resolution of the original.
Also, even though nearly every episode of the classic series used videotape for the broadcast masters, many of those stories used film for location work and for special effects shots, and some of that film still exists and could be rescanned in HD and coupled with upconverted video for a Blu-Ray release. (Mouse over the image of Peter Davison on this page to see what rescanning did for Castrovalva...)
At Paizo, we're very aware of we're good at, and what we're not good at. Even more importantly, when we want to do something we're not good at, we're good at knowing when we should acquire the skills to do that thing, or partner with somebody else. Creating a digital card game ourselves would be a money sink*, while licensing it to an established publisher with an excellent reputation brings rewards with minimal risk. We're also very capable of writing contracts that don't give away our IP.
*Heck, just the cost to put 3 software developers to work for a year (including benefits and other costs) would be in the neighborhood of $300,000.
Folks, I quite simply have no interest in doing this to the game. While it isn't an issue to expert players such as yourselves, it's an added layer of abstraction that makes the game just a little less easy to approach, and also less immersive. And this isn't theoretical—this is something I actually observed in a prior version of the game. It's a better game for having moved away from it.
As for the MARCO POLO thing, several fan sites (including those right about the previous missing story) have suggested that it is in error: MARCO POLO has been found, but in Ethiopia by the same guy who found the last lot, following up fresh leads resulting from that find.
Reading between the lines from the source I trust, I think the leads currently being followed are pointed toward The Abominable Snowmen, The Wheel in Space, and Episode 3 of The Web of Fear—all of these are theorized to have traveled to Nigeria along with the recently recovered episodes from Web of Fear and Enemy of the World.
Steve Geddes wrote:
I think it's vitally important we clarify exactly what terminology we should use to describe what everyone agrees they did.
I can help with that! I'll clarify the word "use."
When we use Open Game Content from Dreamscarred Press (or any other publisher), we use the OGL, and that means we use "use" in the same sense of "use" that the OGL uses:
"Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted of Open Game Content, which is defined as the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content, and means any work covered by the OGL, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations; names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark clearly identified as Product Identity by the owner of the Product Identity, and which specifically excludes the Open Game Content.
Do not ask me what "potation" means.
I expect the admins will have better things to do than monitor private conversations, but if for some reason it became apparent to the admins, it could be a problem for someone.