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.
*If* we were to do anything with Psionics, pretty much the first thing we'd do would be put James and Jason into a room and tell them they can't leave until they have a plan they're both happy with.
So if they're currently saying things that seem to agree, that's probably going to be Paizo's stance too. And if one of them says anything that the other one seems to contradict, then Paizo probably doesn't have an opinion at this time. :-)
Please, please don't release promos exclusive to these events like FFG does. I like the current system of getting them with a subscription. Everyone has the same opportunity to get them. If they're only available at events, many of us won't be able to get them.
I'm a big fan of ensuring that promo cards are made available to subscribers.
One issue people are starting to question over on BGG is whether there will be a new base set with every AP. I suspect there will be and personally hope there will be a new base each time, as I posted over there, but of course you'll have people complaining no matter what you do. More thematic content specifically pertaining to an individual AP is important in my eyes, so I'd like to see a new base set each time (despite my being a poor grad student, what's an extra $120 a year for a great game that I'll get many, many hours of enjoyment out of). Do you currently know whether you will keep releasing a new base set with each AP?
That's the plan. We really need new Base Sets to make each AP's theme work. (That said, we have ideas about ways to extend the play value of Base Sets beyond the APs as well. But that's an announcement for another time.)
The Doctors don't refer to themselves by number.
Numbering aside, there have been several "let's review all of the Doctors" moments in the new series (among others, the Journal of Impossible Things in Human Nature, and a visual recap in The 11th Hour), and none of them includes...
...this "War Doctor" fellow.
That needs some 'splainin.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Cool. Given the switch to monthly release, will an AP still have six adventures? Or will there be twelve expansion decks?
Each AP will still have 6 Adventure Decks. Our current plan is that we'll launch the third AP in February 2015.
No, I'm not saying what it's going to be—ask again in about six months!
Hey, you know what? The Pathfinder Online cash shop is not theoretical—it has already happened. In the Kickstarter, people have already given Goblinworks real-world money, and some of those people will be receiving in-game rewards, including some things that other people will be unable to get (though some of those rewards may change hands in-game).
And you can see from that exactly the sort of game-breaking items that Ryan thinks is appropriate to exchange for money: Pointed-Toe Shoes! A Cool Fez! The Goblin Squad Dogslicer—a poorly-made weapon with a goblin head embossed near the hilt!
It's the END OF THE WORLD!
That problem is in your imagination, and in Kabal 362's imagination. "i never saw a cash shop that wasnt pay to win" is the key statement there. Ryan has already told you that the cash shop in PFO will not be pay-to-win. You are choosing not to believe that, and that's, frankly, your own problem—it's not the game's problem.
Mike Selinker wrote:
Actually, it's neither goblin nor dog. From the Bestiary:
"Despite its name, the goblin dog is in fact a species of rodent grown monstrously large. Their long-legged shape and proclivity to hunt and run in packs earned them their popular name, a name that many goblins take issue with, as it galls the average goblin to consider these, their favored mounts, having anything at all to do with actual dogs. Of course, being goblins, they haven't bothered to come up with alternate names for goblin dogs. Perhaps they don't realize they can."
Here are some of my thoughts regarding a high-level play book (presented in the order they came into my head, which should not be equated with significance):
We have a limited number of slots for rulebooks each year, so we have to be careful about how we fill them. Given the choice between a book that will appeal to everyone and a book that will appeal to a subset of everyone, we're almost always going to go with the former.
In my personal opinion, high-level play is the least fun part of the game. Publishing a book that focuses entirely on the least fun part of our game is not on the top of my to-do list.
Now, I think it would be *great* if we could do a book that made high-level play *more* fun, but our supplementary rulebooks *augment* the core rules—they don't rewrite them. And I genuinely believe that in order to make high-level play more fun, we would have to change the existing rules—and probably pretty dramatically. Without changing the rules, I think Mythic comes pretty close to what we can achieve in making high-level play (of a sort, anyway) more fun.
Note that I'm speaking for myself here, and others have other views. Which is to say that my arguments against such a book here don't mean that we won't eventually do one.
Personally, I'm disappointed with one of the PDFs I recently purchased for the maps in Runelords. It's missing the Catacombs under Sandpoint, the final encounter with Karzoug, and several other maps. I half-suspect the maps are from the original series rather than the Anniversary Edition, and if I'd known that when I purchased it, I'd not have purchased it.
Yes—the product you purchased was the PDF edition of an accessory designed for use with the original six-volume edition of the AP. The product listing was less than clear on that point, so I've updated the product description, and I'll ask customer service to refund your purchase.
We do have an interactive map PDF for the Anniversary Edition, but, as noted above, it's not compatible with image extraction tools. If you want to extract maps for the Anniversary Edition, you'll need the full Anniversary Edition PDF.
I much prefer a unit based on the length of a dead king's foot than a unit based on the length of the path light travels in a vacuum in 30.66331898849837 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the cesium-133 atomic ground state.
Because that dead king's foot is right around the length of my own foot, but I keep misplacing my cesium-133.
Assuming you have the Base Set, the Character Add-On Deck, all of the Adventure Decks, and one copy of each promo card:
Character Decks: 28 (each)
(We've created 1 promo card for each of the starred types.)
Lots of misinformation about trademarks here. Trademarks, unlike copyrights, are *not* automatic; they must be registered. And when they're registered, they're registered for a particular goods and services ("G & S") category; other people (or the same people) can register the same mark for a different G&S.
So if you look up "D&D" at the US Patent and Trademark Office, you'll find over a dozen registrations by different companies, each with a different scope of use. Wizards of the Coast does indeed have an active registration for the term (reg. no. 1779033) for "fantasy role-playing games and board games, and game accessories; namely, booklets containing role-playing game scenarios, and computer game programs."
According to Merriam-Webster, it appears that "build" has been used as a noun, in the sense of "the shape and size of a person's body," since 1667. (It also defines it as "form or mode of structure.")
The way I see it, using it in the sense of a "character build" has quite a lot in common with the usage from 350 years ago!
While I did put the size issue out there because I think it's important for people to know going in, I honestly think it will make *very* little difference in practice. We're talking about half a millimeter here. If you square up a stack of cards and closely examine it, then yes, you can pick them out... but I don't think most people square up every stack in play perfectly; at least, when I stack cards, it's not uncommon for some cards to be more than a millimeter from square, meaning you won't be able to spot the size difference unless you're really *trying* to.
During the six-month run of an AP, we do 3 Flip-Mats, and we're trying to tie at least one of them thematically to that AP. For example, Flip-Mat: Wasteland will come in handy for Wrath of the Righteous players, and Flip-Mat: Desert Ruins will be useful for people playing Mummy's Mask.
But is it the kind of "well-stocked" that means "we've been selling so much we want to make sure we have plenty around", or is it the kind of "well-stocked" that means "we placed a large initial order and haven't moved very much of it yet"?
(I do not know the answer, but it *is* a question that you need to answer for stock levels to be a useful indicator of anything.)
It can also grant you a hairstyle that really complements your facial features.
Why would it? If they wanted it to happen, they could just do it themselves—they own it, 100%, and have the skills needed to compile and print it.
I'd argue that FORGOTTEN REALMS, RAVENLOFT and PLANESCAPE all appeal to different markets, whilst FORGOTTEN REALMS, GREYHAWK and DRAGONLANCE would all appeal to the same, despite minor changes of focus.
You'd be mistaken. What Lisa found was that D&D players didn't identify themselves primarily as D&D players—they identified themselves primarily as Greyhawk players, or Realms players, or Dragonlance players, and even though a Realms player could easily use an adventure published for Greyhawk, they would choose not to. And we continued to see this effect directly when we published Dungeon magazine. In the worst case, if we put the name of one particular setting (which I won't name) on the cover of the magazine, sales of that issue would be notably lower than the issues before or after it, even though there were two other adventures in the magazine that *didn't* use that setting.
There is virtually no automation in painting. Masks are aids for freehand painters.
Believe me, we're not happy about hearing many of you are dissatisfied with the paint jobs. There's always some variation in painting, but we have generally been seeing production paint samples coming very close to the paint masters we approve, which, if you follow Erik's blogs, have been getting better and better.
Keep telling us about these—and better yet, link to photos; we'd like to make sure this is addressed with WizKids ASAP.
7) To pass a really eagle-eyed editor, this whole section should say "Characters" not "Players", since one Player could have two Characters and they can both play a card of a given type! There are some other mentions like this in other sections, but it grated the most here ;)
You're suggesting phrasing like "Characters may now play cards from their hands to affect the check"? Nope. As far as the rulebook is concerned, players are the ones that sit around a table and have hands and decks and discard piles and take actions like playing and drawing cards. Characters are the ones that move around locations and have traits and skills and proficiencies.
For most sessions, they happen to be 1:1, so it's of no import, but reworking everything to say things like "Each player may play no more than 1 of each card type per character" would likely end up confusing more people than it helped.
10) Um... I thought combat damage was only if you failed a Combat check? E.g. if you fail a Wisdom check to defeat a monster I thought you suffered non-combat damage?
You are correct that this represents a change from prior responses: Failing a check to defeat a monster does actually always result in Combat damage unless that monster tells you it's another kind of damage.
(Note that the actual rules didn't really address the issue. Only my statements on the boards ever definitively said otherwise.)
Mike has convinced me that that's the right answer. Take Ghost, for example—you might be trying to exorcise it with a Divine check, but when it hits you, it's doing Combat damage to you just as if you were trying to fight it with your bare hands. We went through every monster that can be defeated with a non-Combat check, and it makes thematic and mechanical sense for every one that doesn't already override it (like Siren).
Our German translation partner, Ulisses Spiele, did a small run of Pathfinder energy drinks, along with a bunch of the other brands they publish.You can see the front of the can here.