|
|
|
Recent posts by
Vivriel:
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Theocrat wrote:
Is there something that I'm missing that shows the "best or most accurate" calendar? The PFCS is extremely vague - it doesn't say how many days are in a month - except the every 8th year leap year with Ardous having an extra day. So is it accurate that each month has 30 days (again, except leap day)? With the PFCS stating that there are 52 Weeks with each week having 7 days, that's 364 days. But with each month only having 30 days, there is then four days missing. The Lilith-Fray calendar doesn't take this into account.
Does Vivriel's calendar take into account that obviously at least four months have 31 days (again, except Ardous with it's leap day in leap year).
Theocrat Issak
At the time I made that calendar, I asked all the same questions you're asking. My research was ultimately an exercise in futility. Besides the PFCS, the calendar has only been addressed officially in the Guide to Korvosa, which states that there are 12 months of 30 days each in a year.
So, which is right? Paizo has to date refused to nail it down, leaving us fans to deal with the discrepancies according to our own preferences. I chose to go with the Guide to Korvosa, because I've no idea where to insert the missing 4 days otherwise.
What is certain is that they have so far set their AP's in the Golarion equivalent of the Earth year it was published. Since SD was published in 2008, it's set officially in 4708, so the date in SD is not a typo. What went wrong, I think, was the author referring to Lilith's 4707 calendar as 4708 when he wrote it.
Either way, you're not going to get an official answer. Just choose one calendar you like or make your own, and use it for your own Golarion campaign. I sync'ed my calendar with SD, but I can't guarantee a future AP won't mess with a future day/date on my calendar.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lady Bluehawk wrote:
On the other hand, January 1, 2008 (Abadius 1, 4708) was on a Tuesday (my Toilday), and Viv's is on a Fireday (his fifth day of the week, my Oathday, Thursday in real life)?
I'm confused... :-/
As are we all. Paizo has not, to date, published an official calendar, so we're all working on our own preferred assumptions. The Guide to Korvosa states that there're 12 months of 30 days each, which makes 360 days in a non-leap year. The Campaign Setting says 52 weeks of 7 days, which makes 364 days.
My calendar assumes 360 days in a year.
Have fun with it, but don't expect it to match our Earth calendar with 365 days and a leap year once every 4 instead of 8 years.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Daeglin wrote:
It's all in how you think of it. People who really want the print product benefit from having access to the pdf's if desired. Those who want only the pdf's receive them regularly at the usual pdf price and won't miss issues. They have the option of receiving the print copy if they are willing to pay the shipping. For international customers, this cuts the total cost of "subscribing" significantly. Paizo does not lose on this because they don't make money from the shipping. People subscribing for the pdf's, would cause the print run for each issue to increase, as every subscriber would need to have a print issue potentially available. Not all of them would want it, which would leave Paizo some "left over" print issues, the cost of which had already been covered through the subscription model. In fact, increasing the print runs could result in some additional cost savings for Paizo. Everyone benefits in some way. But in order for it to feel "fair", people would have to change their perception - they are paying for the content, not the form of media the content is provided to them.
Precisely. I have never understood the perceived cost to Paizo of throwing a subscriber's print copy into the trash, if said subscriber doesn't want the print copy.
I used to be a charter subscriber, but cancelled my subscription after PF #4 partly because of the shipping cost for a hardcopy that had ZERO value to me (and partly because I ended my RotRL game after reading PF #3). I've been buying individual PDF's of CotCT and SD, but have decided to give LoF a miss because Arabian isn't my cup of tea. If Paizo had offered a PDF only subscription from the start, I'd probably have kept it rather than go to the trouble of cancelling and picking up specific issues I wanted, because the benefits that come with a subscription are nothing to be sneezed at - the Pathfinder Advantage and free Player's Guides.
Without a PDF subscription model, Paizo is definitely losing my business for the LoF arc at least. I just can't see how it helps Paizo NOT to offer a PDF subscription.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I made an Excel calendar generator for Golarion that works for any year from 1 A.R. with moon phases, leap days and the holidays in Campaign Setting all marked in. My version differs from Lilith's in 2 major ways:
1) It synchs with the date mentioned in Second Darkness, in that 14 Arodus 4708 IS Oathday.
2) I marked the solstices and equinoxes closer to our real calendar, on the 20/21/22 of the first month of the season, as I think that's what the Pathfinder authors have in mind when they mention things like "first day of autumn" in the AP's. Because the Campaign Setting delineates the seasons clearly by month, I've kept Lilith's method of marking the start of a season on the first day of the relevant month.
You can download it here.
There's a moon font included in the zip. You need to install that to see the moon phases correctly. To generate the calendar for a particular year, just type the year number into the yellow box on the first page.
This being Excel, the calendar isn't as pretty as the one that Lilith and Fray made, but it does work for any year into the future. If anyone with more artistic talent wants to take it and make pretty swimsuit calendars out of the output, be my guest.
Enjoy!
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vic Wertz wrote:
CluelessPlanewalker wrote:
Actually if you downgrade to Adobe Reader 8.1 (the free version), you can do it the way Vic described. Only since Adobe Reader 9 this functionality seems to be unavailable.
Sorry—I didn't realize Adobe had removed that from Reader 9!
I've just upgraded to Acrobat 9 and, to my dismay, discovered this problem. Upon further testing, it seems only Paizo PDF's exhibit this problem; PDF's from other sources, as well as those I create myself, allow me to select images with the select tool in Acrobat 9.
So it seems Paizo is doing something different to their PDF's that disables this function in 9. What, I've no idea, but could someone possibly investigate and maybe fix it for future products? It's something of a nuisance having to keep both Reader 8 and Acrobat 9 installed in order to run my games (online). I can live with it for now, but I don't see the viability of keeping Reader 8 around forever just because of Paizo PDF's.
Thanks in advance for giving your attention to this admittedly little problem!
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Mortika wrote:
Given a choice between keeping on schedule and putting out a more polished product, I know you won't be able to please everybody, but I'll vote for the more polished product. Five years from now, nobody will care if, say, Pathfinder #9 was two weeks late to the presses, and it took four months to get back on schedule. If people five years from now look back and say that Pett did the best darn job they've ever seen on that kind of module, I think you'll be prouder of that work.
Given a choice between fulfilling "next issue" promises and filling a book with the very best stories and articles you can muster, I know that you'll make people angry one way or the other, but I'll vote for the best stories and articles.
FWIW, here's another STRONG vote for quality over keeping to a tight schedule that's obviously unmanageable on top of juggling all your other product lines.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with Hiddendragon and Takasi, though not about Shackled City. I'm running Shackled City and Burnt Offerings now, and the latter is nowhere as compelling as the former. I've been trying to figure out what it is about SC that makes it so compelling to the same group of players who are losing interest in Burnt Offerings, and earlier today, after skimming through Hook Mountain Massacre, I reached the same conclusion as the OP.
In SC, the first thing that hooked them into the story were the Caulron regional traits, each linked into the overall story. At the start of the campaign, most of them already had individual bits of the mystery that, though they didn't understand it, would prove important later. The shocking event at the end of Chapter 1 convinced them something BIG was going on, even if they didn't know what it was. Then I modified the premise of Chapter 2 to drop the Cagewrights' name, so they have a name to go after, though they don't yet know anything about the organization. We're only finishing Chapter 3, but the emotional investment in their characters and the story is huge.
By contrast, all of these little hooks are missing from Runelords. Like Hiddendragon says, individually, each module is fun, probably more fun than each individual chapter of SC, but as a whole, the link between them is tenuous.
It was SC that converted me to Paizo's AP's, but Runelords has been disappointing so far.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This:
Vic Wertz wrote:
The bottom line is that we did our best to get these things done before Gen Con, and we missed by a little less than a week—but not through lack of effort. If you want to fault us for that, go right ahead, but we felt it was important to get it done right, not just get it done fast.
is far less palatable than:
Gary Teter wrote:
I'm trying to see if there's any way I can speed up the process for international subscribers. Not sure if I can get it done in time to affect Pathfinder #1, but I would like to have a new system in place by the time we do Pathfinder #2.
A programmer who knows how to deal with frustrated customers, now that's a rarity. Thanks, Gary. I'm still frustrated (and from other posts I'm not the only one), but at least now I can look forward to a more timely PDF next issue.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vic Wertz wrote:
International shipments (including APO/FPO addresses) are a little trickier. While domestically, we can just print up a bunch of postage labels simultaneously, and then stick them on prepacked envelopes, international shipments all require customs forms, so we have to drop them into our standard fulfillment pipeline, which isn't as fast. So those will probably spread out over a few days as well.
Having jumped on the bandwagon back in April, I'm more than a little frustrated to read this now, when I know those who went to GenCon have already got their copies, and those US subscribers are downloading their PDF's right now.
When I subscribed, I knew I'd be getting my hardcopy after everyone else, but the lure of subscribing was the PDF that I was sure I'd be getting at the same time as everyone else, and before non-subscribers.
And now this?
I was a programmer before I "retired", so I do understand how it works. My frustration doesn't stem so much from being told it's delayed because of bugs in the code, but from knowing that others are getting their non-subscriber copies and PDF's before me. Why in the world can't the PDF be released to me first?! I give you every authority to charge my card NOW, if that's the problem. I don't care when the hardcopy gets to me. It can wait till next year if it'll help you plan your shipments, but I want my PDF! The PDF is the only thing that's really useful to me anyway. The hardcopy will be more for collection than anything.
Deep breath.
Sorry for the rant, but when I've been waiting for weeks to start my new campaign and keep reading about others getting their issue...
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
trellian wrote:
When I start the Rise of Runelords Adventure Path, I will introduce a very unpopular house rules. No raising allowed. It has always irked me that dying in D&D is taken so lightly, because of the fact that you can easily (and in 3rd ed, cheaply) be resurrected. No more. Still, it is a dangerous game, and the adventure paths has always been lethal (as the various obituaries thread cleary show). Therefore, I will be introducing some kind of action point/hero point/fate point system.
I have taken a look at the AP-system in Unearthed Arcana, but it was a tad more complex than I initially wanted it to be. Have anyone tried this with luck? Or have their own system they would care to share?
I am running Shackled City with the no-resurrection house rule, but instead of action points (which I felt were too complex too), I use the alternate death and dying rule from Unearthed Arcana. It has worked very well. No deaths so far, though they've all had to make Fortitude saves vs death several times.
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|