|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
The OP is absolutely, unequivocally correct; Pathfinder 2.0 is NOT inevitable. Humanity could be wiped out by an asteroid tomorrow.
But barring any society-shaking event -- or the complete demise of Paizo -- there will eventually be a revision of Pathfinder. Not only does it make business sense, but with 6+ additional years of experience, I'm confident Paizo could make a better game. I do expect, however, that the eventual revision will be along the lines of tightening and clean-up, and to bring some of the better ideas (traits, archetypes, etc.) into the core, rather than a radical departure.
Why wouldn't we be able to agree on that? It's self-evident. The existence of God is not contingent on anyone's belief or disbelief.
1. I've had people argue this with me before; and2. I've found it's safest not to assume anything when it comes to politics or religion. I simply often have to be reminded. :)
And that remains your opinion, not an indisputable fact.
You're right...such evidence could exist. I'm not entirely sure why no one has shared it if it does, but if and when they do, I'm quite ready to change my position. After all, the prospect of a benevolent, omnipotent deity is really quite appealing.
But I'm curious...can we agree that the existence (or non-existence) of God is a matter of fact, not opinion? That is, God as you envision him either exists, or he doesn't...he can't be real for you, and at the same time not real for me?
Pretty much. I choose to believe in a god. I don't believe there is any evidence of such a thing in our world, however. (Which is incidentally why I ignore organized religions and holy books.)
And I respect your right to believe as you do. Nor do I claim I can disprove the existence of an omnipotent god -- such a thing is manifestly impossible.
But unless/until I share whatever experience lead to this belief, I do not -- can not -- share it. Which is why I find attempts to proselytize (which, to be clear is NOT happening in this thread) to be so frustrating.
"Belief based on revelations to which I have not been privy" is not verifiable by observation, and therefore by definition not empirical. I cannot -- and do not -- deny the possibility of such.
As to the evidence...with apologies, I will not budge. There is no strong empirical case for the existence of God (which frankly, most of the theists whom I respect freely acknowledge).
Steven T. Helt wrote:
I'm bugged when people think that roleplaying is somehow a meaningful commentary on daily life. It's a hobby.
This. As an atheist, I enjoy playing characters of faith. The clarity afforded by an objectively verifiable personification of good is particularly appealing to me, probably because I do not believe such a thing can exist in the real world.
To be fair, Jaelithe did allude to atheists being annoyed by bible quotations. Part of our earlier exchange was me attempting to explain why I often find them annoying (they're often implicitly treated as evidence), rather than expressing annoyance or accusing Jaelithe of using them as such in this thread. Forgive me if the distinction seems overly fine, but I do feel my earlier comments are being somewhat mis-characterized.
To be blunt, I do not believe faith is a virtue. Rather, faith -- belief without empirical evidence -- is self-evidently antithetical to our progress as a species, especially given what the statistics reveal about its origin. However, if this thread truly isn't the place for such discussion, can we maybe tone down the rhetoric about the "other side" all around?
Yup, I got there; I was just riding the slow bus. ;-)
Edit: And I just got your last reply. I really need to start reading threads backwards before replying. :P
I can't speak for any other non-believers, but I find it irritating because in order for the bible to be divinely inspired (as it claims), we must pre-suppose the existence of god. Using the bible to prove god exists is therefore a necessarily circular argument.
So yeah...I don't think you'll get much traction citing the bible to an atheist. :P
But we've veered way off track for this thread, so I'll excuse myself.
Alternatively we could acknowledge that bloat and character class power levels are matters of opinion. The world has plenty of real conflict without us inventing more.
Personally I find the idea that Pathfinder doesn't have a bloat problem patently ridiculous. And judging from so-called "conga line of bloat threads" it would appear I'm not the only one.
And yet somehow I'll refrain from passive-aggressively insulting anyone's parentage. Carry on.
I've never been able to get past about episode 5 of Agents of Shield. Daredevil, on the other hand grabbed me from the first episode. Different scope/goals aside, there is much to be said for good storytelling.
BTW, what's wrong with "The Wire with masks?" The Wire is on may critics top ten lists for the best T.V. show of all time. If Daredevil even gets close it will be a first for a comic-book show.
It is basically 5E content packaged for Fantasy Grounds, which is a VTT. My understanding is that there is character generation functionality, as well as in-play support, but it all runs in the context of the VTT.
While it should come in very handy for people running a 5E game in FG, it is neither a stand-alone character generator nor an e-book "solution" (sadly).
The Fox wrote:
You have misidentified the problem. Lack of winter is not the issue at all. It is that Gen Con is at the end of July. That is Summer in most of the northern hemisphere. In Phoenix, the end of July is an entirely different season. I think it is called Damnation.
Here is someone enjoying a pleasant July stroll in Phoenix.
Nope. Everyone knows it's either Mad Max or 1984.
The right to refuse service to gays is like the right to refuse service to black people, or women, or old people. That is, for the good of society it must give way to people's right to be treated equally. Sure, you can refuse service to anyone for no reason, but you can't refuse service to someone on the basis of race, age, sex, or other protected class. Of course, the ultimate (and obvious) answer to the inevitable "sexual orientation isn't a protected class" response is to simply make sexual orientation a federally protected class. It's only a matter of time, so let's just do it already.
Edit: Some people are arguing that we have effectively already done so.
Expecting the free market to weed out charlatans -- especially before they do plenty of damage -- simply isn't realistic in a modern, hyper-specialized economy. Most consumers lack the means, time, or ability to perform, say, independent trials of experimental drugs. That's why we have an FDA.
Why is this even a discussion?
A highly regarded expert wrote:
Ran it twice today. I'll probably give another read through before writing a review (I'm running it again next Sunday), but my immediate thoughts:
First and foremost, this is a great scenario; probably my favorite 1-5 since Night March. There are several opportunities for fun role-playing. However, there are some gotchas:
1. It's easy -- and understandable -- for the players to get hung up on solving the riddle. Be prepared to give them a gentle push.
2. Both tables asked about the dare which sent Virml into the archives, so at least have a name or two ready in case.
3. Both tables also asked about the name of the fey lord who trapped Caught within the scroll. Have something ready for this as well.
4. The map. Oh gods, the map. Drawing it was bad enough, but we had a lot of "is that a legal square?" and "how many squares to go through a diagonal of deep bog?" (six, I think).
5. A few of the monsters do not appear in the appendix -- refresh yourself on the ju-ju zombie, void worm, and nixie before running.
6. Be ready for players who don't want to put Caught back in the scroll. By my reading, the easiest way to get the 2nd prestige is to re-imprison someone for the crime of being arrogant, meaning you might as well toss Kreighton in with him...
Genius is 145+.
Also, the IQ = int * 10 doesn't really work; the distribution is all wrong.
Liz, I think most of the comments in this thread are predicated on the idea that the ACG errata is done (or nearly so), and the outstanding question is simply whether it should be held until the first printing of the book is sold-out. I know my mine were.
In a more general sense, of course more errata would be nice, but I appreciate that resources are not infinite.
Some day, possibly in the not-so-distant future, someone will decide that Paizo's use of smurf images is a copyright violation. Then Paizo will have to remove all the smurf images from their database, rendering thousands of smurf posts completely nonsensical.
WHY IS EVERYONE TALKING ABOUT SMURFS?!?!
Edit: OMG that is the perfect avatar for this post... :-)
I'm not saying their position is wrong, exactly; merely that I believe it puts the focus in the wrong place. But again, Paizo hasn't hired me as a consultant, it's not my company, and so it's not my skin in the game. :)
I will say that, in the cases I have studied, companies don't seem to lose sight of great customer service overnight. Instead, it often happens through a series of small, seemingly well-considered decisions that gradually chip away at the customer experience over years (or even decades). I'm not saying this is definitely one of those decisions -- though I suspect it might be -- I'm saying that if it were my company, it is certainly something I'd keep in the back of my mind.
To me, supporting your customers first and foremost is always the right answer.
Liz Courts wrote:
Local game stores are also our customers, and invalidating their inventory on a just-released title is not good for them.
I don't think releasing Errata constitutes invaliding their inventory. But even if it did, technically speaking retailers are just middle men. The consumers who buy your books are the people you should be most concerned about.
Keep in mind that, as someone moving away from printed books where possible, I have zero intention of buying any printing of the ACG, meaning I have no personal stake in this. I'm just speaking from a "business school case study" perspective when I observe that maintaining a laser focus on delighting customers nearly always pays off in the end. If it were my company, I know what I'd do. But hey, armchair quarterback. :)
So, I'm running this twice this weekend, and have now read it twice. I am really looking forward to the NPCs, and planning to continue prepping tonight.
However, I've also sunk over an hour into drawing the maps. The first map took 15 minutes, even with a bit of detailing...no problem. So far the second has taken nearly an hour, and it still isn't finished (or 100% accurate). IMHO maps predominantly oriented on the diagonals should be rejected outright before reaching a cartographer.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
I get that NPCs "following the rules" is important to some, and while there is nothing wrong with that, it seems unlikely that the players would ever note this discrepancy unless the GM shows them [REDACTED]'s stat-block.
In short, this seems like something best ignored. YMMV.
Some Pathfinder books could benefit from allowing bookmarks, on the other hand...
Agreed! I certainly wouldn't mind having more permissions on my Pathfinder PDFs. However, I am not knowledgeable about the granularity of PDF permissions; there may be a technical reason bookmarks aren't allowed.