|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
David Bowles wrote:
Get technologist on a skill monkey for season 6, and then just retrain it away later.
That works once you know about it. For some reason I can't discern, it isn't mentioned in the Guide to Organized Play (despite there being a "special rules for Season 6" section!)
But even so, how does a season 6 skill-money feat-tax make the game more enjoyable for anyone?
Yes, you might not benefit directly by doing the right thing. But someone else does. And hopefully they remember, and maybe they even do the right themselves in the future...whether or not they expect to be rewarded. By acting selflessly, over time we can improve society for everyone.
Or, you know, FUGM.
I don't think it takes Confucius to figure out which one works better for everyone in the end. ;-)
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I don't always agree with SKR, but when I do, it's because he writes something like this.
In your defense...Poe's law
Lisa Stevens wrote:
WotC wasn't immune to the crappy paint job every so often either
As someone who purchased at least a thousand, this is absolutely true. There were some real stinkers...but there were some really good ones, too. Just like Pathfinder Battles.
Of course it's a lot easier to overlook a dog when the cost per figure is $1.25, rather than $3+, but that's hardly Paizo's fault. After all, Paizo doesn't have Hasbro (who I hear knows a thing or two about large scale toy manufacturing) behind 'em.
James Jacobs wrote:
So THAT explains why you never read my posts. ;-)
Kirth Gersen wrote:
I think that's key -- realizing it exists, even if you often don't see it. For me, that took being on the other side of things.
Simon Legrande wrote:
I'm not sure that I ever said racism doesn't exist. I'm quite aware of its existence partly in thanks to the term "white privilege". I'm acknowledging that racism exists on all sides and that anyone who says only whites can be racist is flat out wrong. The way I see it, the only way to eliminate racism is for ALL people to stop practicing it.
And I don't think I accused you of saying racism doesn't exist.
What I meant was that ignoring race entirely -- assuming such a thing is possible -- actually enables racism unless everyone does it. And since we know that not everyone does...
Simon Legrande wrote:
That chip up there is called collectivism. I keep it there as a reminder that even though I wish to be treated as an individual and strive to treat others the same, that will usually be considered bad because many other people would rather identify themselves by the group they belong to. Every now and then someone comes along and tries to load some guilt up there too. Because for some reason I should be held accountable for the actions of people I've never met just because we have the same skin color. Well there's no room for the guilt so don't expect me to feel any.
Nor should you.
But refusing to acknowledge racism doesn't eliminate it, just as the act of acknowledging racism is not itself racist.
Simon Legrande wrote:
This is why I pointed out that it was a rhetorical question. I knew that it was impossible and someone was likely to come along and explain how I'm wrong for thinking people shouldn't be treated as lesser people for having a different skin color because as a white person I just don't know any better. I'm actually surprised if took this long.
Only that isn't what happened. But as you pointed out, you'd already made up your mind what the response was going to be, so what actually happened doesn't really matter.
Other than insulting and verbal beatings to whites who get involved in race discussions with out self flagellation HOW do you combat it?
In a word? Empathy.
I'm a white male. But I'm a white male who grew up in Hawaii, at a time when racial slurs were openly used against the light-skinned. And I don't just mean some people used them....pretty much everyone did. School employees, civil servants, etc. At the time, of course, I hated it. In hindsight, I think it gave me some perspective. So while I can't begin to imagine how it feels to be black, I do have some experience living with a culture of racism. And it sucks, not matter how "subtle" it happens to be.
Instead of telling someone their work sucks, tell them what they did right first, and then offer a suggestion on how the weak portions could be better. I forget that sometimes as well, but it's a philosophy for communicating criticism we should all strive to uphold.
That's great advice...which I would do well to remember myself.
As to the question "does Paizo have too many irons in the fire?"
I'd say...maybe. I'd say the customer service back-up and the ACG editing do seem to point to them being right on the ragged edge of what they're current able to handle. Things should improve, though, once they are able to bring more CS folks on board.
Super-reasonable PDF policy, especially with respect to the price of the hardbacks in the RPG line.
They support a vibrant, healthy organized play program.
With few exceptions, I find their adventures to be first-class.
Even though they don't necessarily do what I want, they are generally very responsive to customer requests.
Flip-mats are crazy awesome.
Erik Mona has been very approachable and not at all dismissive on the occasions I've met him.
The Beginner Box.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
I've seen the 1st and 2nd printing AA, and I know they don't have "stats for a buttery knife." So unless he has a unique printing that does, he is lying.
Or he was incorrectly remembering what he saw from the ToC as having been in the text. People do that sometimes. Generally, we call it a mistake, rather than a lie.
And really, there's still an error in the book, so irrespective of its particular nature, his point stands.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Actually, it doesn't. It shows Vic responding to his post, but not further response from him -- meaning there's no way to know if he ever saw Vic's reply.
Personally, I think I'd have more evidence than that before I essentially called someone a liar. But hey, don't let that stop you.
Steve Geddes wrote:
Ah; then please accept my apology. The whole thing has left a bad taste in my mouth and I appear to have assumed the worst.
as everyone knows the big issue with doing 2.0 is that paizo would likely invalidate previous A.P.s, that's probably the biggest issue, before paizo most companies survived on rule books and splat books, so it made sense to redo the rules ever 5 years or so. with paizo a lot of it comes from the AP's so it might not make economic sense to have a new edition.
I think if they did a 3.0->3.5 level transition, and focused on the presentation and organization, they could produce a rule-set that would work with the existing material with very little adjustment...roughly like running one of the OGL adventure paths using Pathfinder. Though admittedly, there would still be some work involved.
Jail House Rock wrote:
Absolutely, unequivocally not possible for Paizo to "put WotC down." D&D could disappear tomorrow, and WotC would continue merrily along with Magic.
Besides, why would you want such a thing? Enjoy people being laid-off? Think competition is bad? :P
These forums, despite the opinion of some, aren't really any better than any others. There have been a few threads where I've had the entire Paizo Defense Force rise up and tell me to GTFO, that my opinions were unwelcome, and that I should leave these forums and not return sine I have the temerity to prefer some other system to Pathfinder.
The "Paizo Defense Force" is definitely a thing. Unfortunately.
Jeff Merola wrote:
Yeah, it's a train wreck. Put a rule that changes how a scenario works in a book not referenced anywhere in the scenario. *sigh*
I think I'll avoid running any scenarios involving technology for the time being.
You can argue there needs to be changes made but as long as Paizo continues to make money and be successful with their current strategies, that's not going to happen; Regardless of your opinion.
I'm sorry, but the tone of your post is very much "if you don't like how things are, shut up, because they aren't changing" and I just can't agree with that. Customers can and should offer feedback, whether you agree with that feedback or not. In the case of play tests, Paizo is explicitly asking for feedback.
I think you are mistaking fanbase with forum-base. The only people that talk about PF problems at PFS are forum goers IME. The folks that just show up to game are quite happy with PF and its direction.
Right up until they're not, and they just stop showing up. And no, many of those people don't come to the forums...they just go away. In fact, many people refuse to come to these forums because this isn't a friendly place if you're even perceived as being at all critical of Pathfinder. But that's another thread.
Its possible that you and yours are not, but I urge caution in trying to make a case for the majority. It might just be the case you and Paizo/PF are not a good fit. Though numbers wont lie despite making the same mistakes over and over, PF remains successful and popular.
Yes, Pathfinder is popular. So is McDonald's. Personally, I play Pathfinder in spite of the rules, not because of them. Neither of us has any idea how many others feel the same.