|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
Tanis *showed* Ekkie at PaizoCon, but we did not give them out.
I'm pretty certain this is a retailer who has received his Free RPG Day kit (and I've connected enough dots that I think I know who it is). I've passed on the info to the Free RPG Day organizers. (Retailers are not allowed to release products prior to the event, and they are not allowed to sell the products at any time.)
Eegarding Vic's post: I strongly believe if a card has a list of things to do (like our friend the Cyclops Oracle) then it should be done in the order listed on the card, unless the card specifically says to do it in any order.
The rulebook explicitly says that the default is exactly the opposite: "If the game doesn’t specify an order for things, you decide the order."
The real problem here is that it's not obvious which of these rules apply to the situation:
"If a card instructs you to do something impossible, like draw a card from an empty deck, ignore that instruction."
"If you’re told to do something with a certain number of cards and there aren’t that many cards available, use as many as there are. For example, if you’re told to draw 4 cards from a deck that has only 3 cards, draw the 3 cards. (Regardless, if you need to remove any number of cards from the blessings deck and don’t have enough, you lose the scenario; if you need to remove any number of cards from your deck and don’t have enough, your character dies.)"
The latter, not the former, should apply here. (The wording will *certainly* change on the former, and we *may* change the wording of the latter and/or the card in question.)
Vic Wertz wrote:
I don't have the exact wording for the resolution yet, but the answer is going to be that you die.
Garrett Guillotte wrote:
I'm surprised PaizoCon 2016 wasn't mentioned at the preview banquet. The dates for it were in the inside rear cover of the program and I'm assuming it'll be at the same venue, but it seemed like an odd omission.
It will be at the same venue. Unless 7.3 billion people show up.
That said, I can tell you this for sure: Examining a card does not remove it from its location, and the rule "If you’re told to do something with a certain number of cards and there aren’t that many cards available, use as many as there are" applies to the first part.
It's the second part that needs some debatin'.
Type "time in Seattle" into the Google search box.
Oh, it's clear it makes sense. Just not to the consumer. For all I know sales were poor, and this change was the only way to continue making the books. Dunno. Don't really care. What is obvious is that there's been a drastic change not only in pricing, but in the product offered, and the benefits for existing purchasers is effectively nonexistent.
Reposted from here:
I will be frank: one of several primary goals for the Pathfinder Tales line is to attract fiction-loving non-gamers to the world of Pathfinder. And we believe that Tor has the ability to advance that goal farther than we ever could on our own.
Without partnering with Tor, the future of the line would likely not rise above "more of the same." And sure, that's great. But if Tor is able to expand the readership, we might be able to do more and bigger and better things in the future. We might be able to mix things up and do something special outside of the bimonthly paperback novel run. We might be able to attract authors that we can't get right now.* I can't make any promises, of course, but we wouldn't be doing this if we didn't think it gave the line a better future than it would have otherwise.
*Addendum to repost: James tells me that the Tor deal has already allowed us to secure at least one author that we’d been wanting to secure for a while.
I don't think this scenario merits an official resolution, but my answer is that if you start up a new Balazar, bring Padrig back. But if you don't, leave Padrig out.
(You might think that last sentence isn't terribly meaningful, mechanically speaking, since there's no apparent way to use Padrig *without* Balazar... but I'm nevertheless saying it.)
Onwu Anzu 7
Myth Lord wrote:
Between 2010 and 2014, the last hardcover of the year was released in October twice, November once, and December twice. Now, I'm not saying that means there will or won't be a Bestiary 5—or any other book—this year; I'm merely offering some historical perspective.
In that thread, you say:
"In 1997 it wasn't that the main RPG line wasn't making money, but that they were spending more money on project than those projects were bringing in. Hence, you may spend 20K on writing, and 15K on printing, but only sell 10K worth of material. But this wasn't the real reason for the problems, but that it was actually more of a trend."
My understanding is that some of the decision makers were kept largely in the dark about product costs.
Their take (which I listed a few months back in another thread) is a VERY different take on the entire TSR problems, though it in no wise goes counter to the ones you've heard from those that were at WotC, it shows that what they stated is actually rather limited and doesn't portray the entire picture at times.
We're very aware that the proliferation of campaign settings was only a small part of the problem. It's just the one that came up in this discussion.
I'd like to read the other thread you mention. Can you point me to it?
I will note that when Lisa was doing her analysis, she gained access to information that was not commonly known to a lot of TSR employees, even those who one might think would be exposed to such things. Which is to say that some of the people who were there at the time have a very inaccurate picture of what was really going on in the business, especially in the Lorraine Williams era.
Orbis Orboros wrote:
Lisa has been playing Enora in our Wrath campaign, having previously played Ranzak through RotR, and she feels that Enora rides on the edge of dying even more than Ranzak does.
I think Paizo has a fallibility that they believe their own stories a little too much. They talk about splitting the lines weakening the brand, but to tell the truth, ONE major reason I think TSR's D&D was dominate for soooo long was because the SPLIT the line directly between D&D and AD&D.
This isn't just some "story." When Wizards bought TSR, Lisa was assigned the task of figuring out why TSR was in in such dire straits that they *needed* to be bought. She collected sales data on pretty much every significant product TSR ever published, interviewed former and then-current employees and distributors, and Wizards did the largest survey of gamers ever done in the industry. She managed to pull together data that even TSR execs didn't have access to when they were running the company. And all this data showed that every new campaign setting split the market more than it grew the market.
And this wasn't just historical—we saw it happen in front of our eyes while we published three adventures in every issue of Dungeon magazine. If we published a Forgotten Realms adventure, Greyhawk players would complain they couldn't use a third of the magazine, and vice versa. 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.
Reposting from here:
Rumors of the death of print have been greatly exaggerated.
It is true that our digital sales as a percentage of total sales are increasing year over year.
However, some portion of that increase is because the number of products available digitally only ever goes up, and because the number of available print products increases more slowly than the number of available digital products.
That last bit may not be obvious, but think of it this way: Let's say that in a given period, we release 100 new products in both print and PDF, but 15 older products go out of print during that same period. For that period, then, the total number of digital products available went up by 100, but the total number of print products available went up by just 85.
So even if there were no customers actively abandoning print in favor of digital, digital sales as a percentage of total sales would still be likely to increase year over year.
Yet even with that in mind, the increase is much slower than you might think.
Print isn't going anywhere soon, and isn't likely to become anything less than a majority of our business in the foreseeable future.