|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
In this case I'd pay $50 for a PDF, because it's time to put my $$ where my mouth is. I also want to encourage WotC to release PDFs.
However, I agree that isn't a optimal pricing strategy (though it might make gaming stores happy). I think ~$30 -- roughly the price for which you can get the book from Amazon -- would ultimately be more realistic.
First of all, credit where credit is due: This is a big step in the right direction. Maybe they're learning.
Personally, however, I will not be moving to 5E until a complete, non-proprietary digital version of the rules is available. I'm simply unwilling to hitch my wagon to a system that could go out-of-print at any time. I'm done putting myself at the mercy of publisher whims as to how/when I can view what I've purchased....especially in a world in which pretty much every other publisher routinely offers digital versions.
If/when they wise up and offer PDFs (or equivalent), I would be hard pressed to not jump. I like the system itself quite a bit.
Where do you store it all? :P
There was some use of third-party OGL stuff, but it was usually included in the magazine. As you pointed out, most of WotC's stuff wasn't OGL, so for the most part it was core only (IIRC).
Edit: As correctly pointed out by Steve upthread, Paizo must have had a license to use non-OGL WotC stuff, because I distinctly remember BOVD content. Still, it seemed to be the exception, rather than the rule, but perhaps my memory is not accurate.
Since you bring it up: In my (limited) experience, third party stuff is a mixed bag as far as what it uses. I've picked up half a dozen or so things from Raging Swan (great stuff, btw), and most of it has used just the Core, or stuff that is built from just the Core (NPC Codex -- which I incidentally adore, for all its warts). I have no idea if that is true across the line, though.
That's a good point...I hadn't really considered subscriptions.
Aren't there a number of dead systems like that? Isn't that the basis of things like FATE or Fudge? Personally I went through a phase of homebrewing a system when I felt like moving to Fighting Fantasy feels but wanted diversity. It was kind of derivative of Macrolite d20 but functioned until that group moved on to other things in life.
That's just it, though, I don't want a "dead" system. I want one with continued activity on the adventure and setting front, but not the mechanical front. In a way, that's why Paizo was so ideal in the 3E days.
Like I said, I appreciate that people don't agree with me, but not that some of them feel the need to tell me my (subjective) preferences are objectively wrong. As if they need to make the Internet safe for their point-of-view, or something. :P
And I get that's it's 100% subjective. What bugs me is people saying "your reasons don't affect me, therefore they don't exist."
Nathanael Love wrote:
Incorrect. They gave up on including it long ago. At best they note what is used, and even that isn't 100%.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Second, its all available on all those online places that have been mentioned a dozen times-- if you feel you "need" more information on a subsystem to be able to run it, then you can get that with a modest investment of time (not even money).
I don't want to have to learn the mechanics. The fact that they're free is irrelevant. If they didn't exist, I wouldn't have to learn them. Bloat.
Nathanael Love wrote:
Again, I don't want to have to swap things out. Not everyone has the time (or desire) to do so. That's the point.
Nathanael Love wrote:
...or I can not use the material. As previously noted.
All of your "rebuttals" are basically you saying those things aren't a big deal to you. Great! More power to you. But as an argument that they don't exist, they're an utter failure.
Really, my ideal system has a simple, fast-running core that supports a large number of fictional archetypes out-of-the-box ("swashbuckler, I'm looking at you."). Mechanical supplements are therefore unnecessary, avoiding the inevitable boom-bust cycle. Instead, an ever-growing catalog of adventures and setting material grows on a stable rules foundation. Everything is made available in the widest variety of formats (print, digital, tool support) possible.
While I personally find this model ideal, I think it is far from ideal from the point-of-view of maximizing profits. And so here we are.
Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:
So within the game of Pathfinder itself, saying "don't use that option" is helpful, but saying "don't use that game" within RPGs is not? I fail to see why the hair is split here in particular. Both are available options you can choose to use or not, one is merely a broader scope.
Once again, network externalities.
Unless you're arguing that without the bloat, Pathfinder would be less popular? Which I think is a reasonable argument to make. I'm not short-sighted enough to believe that my preferences are universal.
What I think is less reasonable is the idea that there are no downsides to bloat, and that those of us who dislike those downsides are just anti-choice grinches out to take people's shiny toys away. ;-)
Yes, but the point is that some of the utility normally offered by network externalities (in the form of readily available adventures) is decreased if I don't want to use the mechanical options. I can't simply ignore the bloat and not be affected as is implied.
My rebuttal to that is those "options" invariably start showing up in the adventure path volumes, modules, etc., meaning they're not really optional should you wish to continue to use Paizo's adventures without rework.
It's one of things that has led me to take a break from PFS. As a GM, even the Core Campaign requires that I understand the latest fiddly bits that show up in the scenario. And there are lots.
Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:
See, TOZ? Your problem is you weren't speaking like an adult. Or your players are stubborn. Or something.
If only someone had told you sooner...
GM Rednal wrote:
No, the argument is that Teleport is only broken if you let the PCs get away with abusing it. XD And there are MANY ways of stopping them from doing so.
How is using Teleport to get from one place to another abuse? It's pretty much the whole point of the spell...
On the more practical side, I thought 4E had a pretty clever way of handling the issue. You could only go to an established point, and only if you knew the "address" of that point in advance.
I'm on record for saying long ago (2008ish?) that I thought Pathfinder was doomed. I believed this at the time because I thought Pathfinder would never grow, as it would appeal only to 3.5 fans upset by a new edition. My error was grossly underestimating the how badly WotC would bungle 4E. In fairness, their catastrophic failure was unprecedented, but even so, I was wrong. Pathfinder, in the absence of a viable, well-supported alternative, grew by leaps and bounds. And admittedly, Paizo makes some really, really good products.
But I think the landscape has fundamentally shifted. Pathfinder has grown to rival 3.5 in bloat. Meanwhile, D&D is back with a very well done 5E. And while I personally refuse to buy into a system (5E) produced by a corporation that appears to view PDFs as the blackest witchcraft, clearly many others do not share my hesitation. And so I do not think Pathfinder will continue to grow in the face of a superior alternative.
I could be wrong. I have been before. But I think something has to give, or Paizo will find itself on the trajectory I originally expected: Catering to an ever-shrinking fan base.
On the bright side, I think Paizo has established itself enough that it could continue to grow if it produced a greatly improved 2nd edition.
Alternatively, maybe they could go with a system that doesn't require computer assistance to be manageable. ;-)
Hmmm...I guess I'll chuck my $.02 in.
Yes, Pathfinder needs a 2nd edition. Because the first one is a mess. I believe that Pathfinder's wild success has more to do with WotC's catastrophic failure than anything Paizo has done. Don't get me wrong; they saw an opportunity, and they've executed well. Hell, they've taken the system far, far beyond where I ever expected they'd be able to. But with real competition from WotC, Paizo is going to have to up their game if they're going to continue to thrive.
I think it comes down to producing power easily and cheaply -- which means a chemical (or later, nuclear) reaction -- rather than relying on potential energy, which is situational, location specific and not really scaleable.
Then again, I'm no physicist; maybe it isn't that clear-cut.
I'll echo some other comments...don't do this to yourself. The deeper you look and more informed you become, the less sense things will make, until eventually you can't ignore the blatantly schizophrenic nature of the implied setting. You'll be much happier if you just hand-wave magic and move on.
If, however, you're determined, I'd say the single biggest thing driving the industrial revolution is access to lots and lots of cheap power.
I often see the rules applied incorrectly, but I'm not sure I've seen them totally ignored.
When GMing PFS, I get a lot of "if I move here does he have cover? How about here?" and "Why does he have cover?", often in an annoyed tone, as though I personally wrote the cover rules. :P
Also, like many things in Pathfinder, the cover rules are saddled with too many exceptions in service of (a misguided attempt at) realism.
Hmmm...interesting. Not sure what the point of this product is. Was this a response to Bigger Basic's rapid sales?
The appeal of Bigger Basic -- for myself, at least -- is the ability to accommodate larger pre-drawn maps from other sources. In the case of a pre-print, bigger or not, that utility does not exist.
How about Bigger Basic in a few other colors (white side/light green side)?
The squares on this map aren't actually an inch; they're ~4% too small. Perhaps not a big deal to some, but since I regularly mix flip mats, several different brands of tiles, and other one-inch-grid-based accessories, it's problematic for me. Regretfully, I won't be picking up anything else in the line until the problem is corrected, so I'm posting here in the hopes that it can be.
Shameless bump. I'd really like to know if this has been corrected for the rest of the line...
GMs (or event organizers) should be reporting sessions in a timely fashion. Our goal in AZ is to report everything within 7 days.
That said, you can help make it easier by ensuring that the character(s) in question are registered. Sometimes that name auto-populating is an important confirmation (or clue that something isn't quite correct) when reporting. :-)