|
|
|
|
|
blope's page
Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber. 541 posts (544 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 3 aliases.
|
W E Ray wrote: For 4 years now Jacobs has been saying that APs can't be anything but 6 volumes and for 4 years now I've felt that every "reason" he gives is silly. Harder work on the designers, no doubt. But not undoable (You guys are working your dream-careers, yes?) Not impossible to make sure a new AP begins every GenCon. You got 12 months: One 7 and one 5. Or a 6 and two 3s. Or a 4 a 6 and a 2. Harder work but doable . . . . And you don't have to start every one at 1st level. Starting a 3 volume AP at level 9 would not lose customers. Finishing an 8 volume AP at level 21 would not lose customers. (in theory) You're treating AP volumes like interchangeable widgets, and that's not so.
First off, you should realize that doing 12 installments in the AP line per year currently uses our full capacity. (Actually, you might note that historically, it takes about 13 months of development time to do 12 AP volumes, so we're technically *over* capacity, and end up nearly killing ourselves to get caught up each Gen Con.) And this is not a problem that can be solved by throwing more people at it—it doesn't work that way. So any change we would consider needs to be something that won't increase the workload *at all*.
If we went to, say, three 4-volume APs in a year, it would take more person-hours, because creating and outlining an AP is a big job, and the amount of effort to do that is only partly related to the number of pages of content needed. So "more (but shorter) APs per year" is not feasable.
Also, higher-level adventures are harder to develop, and take longer than low- and mid-level advantures, so stretching APs further into high-level territory would increases the amount of time it takes to do one. So longer APs are not feasible; even doing an 8-volume and a 4-volume would probably take more time than two 6-volume ones. (Maybe we could fit in a 5 and a 7, but A) the 7 would be pushing it, and B) that's just weird, and I don't think it would particularly improve anything.)
And yes, we *do* have to start every one at 1st level. Low level adventures sell better. Always have, always will. There are some really good posts on the boards on that topic already, so I won't repeat them.
Bottom line here is that we have a formula that works really well, and I fail to see any real reason to screw with it.
The Adventure Path product is one of our flagship lines. What does that mean? Among other things... it means that it makes us a HECK of a lot of money. Furthermore, it's the reason why Paizo exists today as a game company at all and not just, say, a game-focused web store. When we lost the license for Dragon and Dungeon, it was pretty much the success (and subscription and sales income) of Pathfinder that kept things afloat long enough for us to not only get Golarion off the ground... but to get the Pathfinder RPG off the ground. Furhtermore... back when we started Shackled City, Dungeon magazine was in dire condition—it was hemorrhaging subscribers and we were trying all sorts of things to get folks to keep subscribing and to even BUILD the subscriptions. Folks will doubtless remember numerous "stunts" we pulled with Dungeon back around issues 92–100—some of the bigger ones included bundling Polyhedron with the magazine, putting "subscriber only" content into the magazine, and going monthly with the magazine. Starting a series of linked adventures was one of those "stunts."
I've probably worked on Adventure Paths longer than anyone else in the industry today—I was brought on by Chris early on to write the second installment of Shackled City, and by the time the third installment was being published I'd been hired as an assistant editor for Dungeon. I've been working on Adventure Paths ever since, and during that time I've seen them work magic. They're the reason Dungeon not only kept going, but saw a dramatic INCREASE in subscription numbers. They win awards. And as mentioned above, they're the reason Paizo exists today.
During the last 10 years or so of Adventure Paths, we have indeed listened to feedback and tried new things with them. With each AP, I like to think we get a little closer to perfection... but I also believe that the "perfect" AP is a moving target you can never quite reach. So we DO keep making changes to the format... but those changes are, nowadays, relatively small. Things like adding an NPC index and magic item appendix like we did with Jade Regent.
And the idea that we don't take risks or try out strange adventures in an AP is, frankly, ridiculous. We've published adventures where the heroes have to star in a play, where they have to take part in a trial, where they wash ashore on a hostile island with very few resources, where they have to disguise themselves as drow and invade an evil society, where they get to use wishes over and over and over, where they lead armies, where the villains were deep into the "vile darkness territory," and where they need to build and run their own kingdoms. And we'll keep testing boundaries and limits with the APs. Coming up we've got things like naval battles, adventures that start the PCs out with NO equipment, true sequals to previous APs, and plenty more "risks and innovations" planned for the future for APs that I'm not yet at liberty to speak about.
Honestly, if I had to pick one thing that WON'T be going away from Paizo's book lines, that would be the Adventure Path line. As long as Paizo's around, our Adventure Paths will be around.
And to speak directly to the recent announcement from WotC... I personally think it would be the HEIGHT of foolishness for us to abandon the product line that's kept us afloat, helped define the company, and remains the flagship line at any time... but especially as a knee-jerk reaction to ANY announcement from ANY company.
I'm always eager to hear suggestions on how to change or add to or enhance the AP (with the caveat that I've seen a LOT of things tried with them over the past decade, and many suggestions aren't as viable as some folks think they might be)... but ending the line? Not gonna happen.
I would like to request a sticky thread be created (not this one because I can't edit it after an hour), that would, in the first post, give a list of guides in this sub-forum.
In the thread we'll discuss which guides to include and which category they should be in - it would be a community project.
This is my no means a complete list...its just a start.
Also, if you are going to post a guide for this list, please have a discussion thread for said guide in the Advice forum so we can link to it. The guide can be off-site, but we need a discussion thread for it, please. Also somewhere in your guide please reference which books you use (Core, APG, UM, UC, etc...).
Guides in Alphabetical Order by Class Name
Alchemist
Antipaladin
Barbarian
Bard
Cavalier
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Gunslinger
Inquisitor
Magus
Monk
Ninja
Oracle
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Samurai
Sorcerer
Summoner
Witch
Wizard
--
Guides in Alphabetical Order by Core Prestige Class Name
Arcane Archer
Arcane Trickster
Assassin
Dragon Disciple
Duelist
Eldritch Knight
Loremaster
Mystic Theurge
Pathfinder Chronicler
Shadowdancer
--
Other Useful Guides in Alphabetical Order
- Abraham Spalding's Guide to the Holy Vindicator (or more specifically channeling) (Core, APG, UM, UC) [Discussion]
- Ashiel's Guide to Adventure: Preparation, Tricks, and Strategies (Core, APG, UM, UC) [Discussion]
- Guide To Spells (Core, APG, UM, UC) [Discussion]
- So you want to play Pathfinder RPG: A comprehensive guide for Dungeon Masters and Players [Discussion]
- The Viking Irishman’s Guide to Weaponry (Core, APG, UC) [Discussion]
This guide is also mirrored at:
Your wall of texts are dull and meandering without substance or point. Disapprove all you like, I'm not concerned about you missing my point. Like your friend you are not going to be convinced.
The equalizer wrote: Whats your point? Why do you allow Str to damage on every attack, but balk at Sneak Attack?
That's my point, but you don't care about it. Nothing will change your mind on this. So have fun with that.
You can argue all you want about how you can use RPG game mechanics without the OGL, or whatever. Sure you can, but it's not a discussion I care to participate any further in, because frankly, doing so is, in my opinion, idiocy. The OGL, while admittedly not the most well-written legal document ever ("potation"? Really?) is free, irrevocable, and, in my opinion, offers a heck of a lot more than it asks. Speaking as somebody who has built a very successful business relying of it, I think it's fantastic, and to anybody interested in publishing RPGs, I say you should check it out.
Earlier, you appeared to take my non-comment on the GSL as some kind of indication that it's value-equivalent to the OGL. As far as I'm concerned, it isn't even close. However, I'm not going into depth on that, because I stopped thinking about it ages ago, and no longer have a grasp of the details. Here's what I do remember: the first version had three major deal-breakers for me, and only one of those was fixed in the revision. I no longer recall what those were, because it's now about as relevant to me as a two-year old weather report, but if you asked me if I thought it was wise to build a business around it, I'd strongly suggest you don't do so without some serious consideration of your other options.
Kevin Morris wrote: What you're instead telling me is that, in some sense, I'm having "badwrongfun" because I want to have a race of halflings that have elven magic (or whatever other subtype-only ability). That is not what I am saying at all. I think we can have a system that has both, frankly, and if at the end, you disagree with some of the prerequisites we put on an ability, and choose to disregard them, I promise I'll never come to your house, point, and say, "you are doing it wrong!"
Does that sound fair?
I love you guys, I really, really do, and I appreciate all the wonderful feedback you give, but can we tone down the hyperbole just a smidgeon? Thanks!
Okay folks, got it. You want us to reassess some of the abilities, and you don't care if the points of all core races add up to 10 points. I will put that on the list of strong considerations for the final iteration of the system.
Thank you for the feedback. We hear you. We want to create a system that you all will like and your GM will use to create new races for the game, so this aspect of the system will be reexamined given the arguments you all put forward.
This is amazing. I don't think I've ever seen such a unanimous agreement on one thing by the members of this board.
Please, Paizo, we want this to be good. We know you want this to be good. For the love of the game and its players, don't let your ego get in the way of something good.
I'll admit I don't follow Sissyl's argument completely - several things were mentioned that I didn't see the same way - but I ask you, how can any discussion comparing two different kinds of gaming be reduced to facts?
We're talking about the feel of a game system. To Sissyl, certain aspects of 4e feel like an MMO. That has very little to do with facts.
Stating that 4e is like an MMO has to be an opinion, because tabletop games and MMOs are very different in construction and rules application.
Even if the rules in the programming are identical, there's no way a MMO player can know what's going on at that level, because the interface doesn't show him that. All he gets is an impression of mechanics.
Basically what I'm saying is that I think Sissyl honestly intended to present a coherent explanation for opinions, and never intended to represent those opinions as anything else.
I will admit there are many 4e haters out there who do exactly what you said they do (though I wouldn't have used the diarrhea comment). I just don't think Sissyl is one of them.
Opinions are very common on these boards. Facts are few. Stating an opinion in a way that sounds like it is a fact is till stating an opinion.
Sissyl has tried a number of times in this very thread to reiterate that those statements are just opinions.
I don't always agree with you, Scott, but you usually respond in a gracious manner, and I have to respect that.
However, your latest response to Sissyl's post was insulting and more than a little offensive.
Well, isn't this nice. I have not once been uncivil in this discussion. I have been clear that what I wrote was MY opinions. And yet, I have been called lots of things here, none of them pretty. Apparently, it is okay to criticize 4th edition AS LONG AS you do not try to explain WHY you don't like it, because when I tried that, I was held to massive standards: Previous posts I made did not even exist, everything that could even remotely bemisconstrued was, I was called out on providing PROOF for every tiny part of a sentence. And so on.
But fine. Even saying that it's my opinion and that others' mileages vary wasn't enough. It was still apparently an attack, inflammatory and downright evil. So I can honesty say that I understand why you guys get crude remarks about your beloved game.
Shocking news: Cartigan isn't happy with something.
Scott Betts wrote:
The situation you linked to? Not a big deal. I probably wouldn't have balked at it (even though I very much doubt the dig at 4e was critical to the thread). But as far as I can see, the "sniping" was one guy and one post. If people are hyper-sensitive to digs against 4e, it's because they've been made so by the unrelentingly hostile attitude towards the game that has, unfortunately, become par for the course across much of this forum community. Oddly, 4e gets more dirt kicked up in its face in the 4e subforum here than it does when it gets mentioned in the Pathfinder subforums here. If we're going to be getting the box of tissues and crying about which edition gets picked on the most, then please, let me throw my useless anecdotal hat into the ring.
This is a Paizo/Pathfinder forum. Yes, this particular subforum is dedicated to 4e, but the message board itself is predominantly inhabited by PF/3.5 fans, many of whom(like myself) came here as a shelter from the storm when the editions switched. Pathfinder is the spiritual and mechanical successor to 3.5, so *gasp* there are a lot of 3.5 people here who don't like 4e. It's all well and good that we can theorize about how we should all be fans of gaming itself, and everyone should get along and yadda yadda yadda, but the reality is that's taking a long time to happen.
In the meantime, 4e fans are sort of "pilgrims in an unholy land" here, so don't act shocked when some of the locals have trouble biting their tongues. No, I don't endorse any attacks on any system. I might have issues with mechanics or corporate marketing ploys, but I won't tell someone to not play something. I'm not saying it's right, but it happens. This very thread is an example. Also, some players are more apt volley their ignorance and frustration at 4e here, rather than Wizards.com, because there is less resistance. Sure, the knowledgeable fans are going to come defend their game, but they won't have an entire site after them like if they tried it at the source.
It's not fair. I'll give you that. Many of the 4e supporters here are some of Paizo's best customers. People should be free to play AP's with whatever ruleset they like. But people have a base tendency to faction off and reside with others like-minded.
I will agree with you; 4e does get it's share of dirt kicked at it around here. Drive-by trolls like the OP are just a recent example. But everywhere else on the net, 3.5 fans have been treated as bad, worse even.
Even over at the site for "the world's most popular RPG," things have settled down a but, but when the edition switch happened, previous edition fans were ganged up on and trolled HARD, and the mods allowed it. But, say one tiny word against the "new and shiny", and you'd get topic-banned, or flamed and trolled into oblivion without a mod lifting a finger.
Some of the more zealous 4e fans even formed little groups, many of whom were based on Marvel comics characters for some reason(4vengers, for example), and would team up to troll out anyone who dared to breath a word of dislike for the new system. Again, the mods endorsed this.
It didn't matter if you had been a loyal customer of that company for many years, you suddenly became "the enemy." I was a regular forum member over there for a long, long time. It's no coincidence that I reside here now.
Cartigan wrote: The point is I don't remotely see how selling minis that give no benefit for a game other than character representation would encourage people to buy the game they are representing characters for. There is no driving incentive. For D&D/PF players to buy the minis? Some in that they want character representation. For people buying the minis to spontaneously deciding to pick up rule books for a game they (a) aren't playing and (b) can find the rules for free online simply because they bought character minis is ridiculous. Thankfully, reality is not dependent upon your limited ability to understand or perceive it. Again, you'd have to accept the base assumption that your opinions are not universally held, which, I realize, is well outside what your ego can handle.
|
|
