Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Sin Spawn

bugleyman's page

RPG Superstar 6 Season Star Voter, 7 Season Star Voter, 8 Season Star Voter. FullStarFullStarFullStar Pathfinder Society GM. 7,603 posts (7,720 including aliases). 79 reviews. 1 list. No wishlists. 8 Pathfinder Society characters. 15 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 7,603 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

GM Rednal wrote:
Have you considered the Beginner Box?

Seconded. The Beginner Box is a fantastic product.


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lorathorn wrote:
I have a strange feeling in my gut that pdfs are coming. They basically have no reason whatsoever not to, at this point

I thought the same thing, until I realized the SRD is incomplete. But I hope you're right! At that point they'll instantly earn a few hundred dollars from me. :-)


5 people marked this as a favorite.

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.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Nathanael Love wrote:

Minis bloat! Stop printing all these new minis of things that haven't had minis before, I don't like these options!

We need a new edition for minis! Only core classes and core monsters!

Terrible analogies and sarcasm don't mix well.


Medriev wrote:


Ultimately, I like what Paizo is doing and I very much hope they are making enough money out of it to keep doing it. Reinventing everything with a new system is something I've been burned by before and I have no desire to have the dozens and dozens of PF products I have on my shelves made obsolete by the launch of a new edition. Realistically, I have more material now than I can use in my lifetime but I (as many on these boards seem to be) am a collector and I will keep buying the latest PF products as long as they are useful. Once they become less than useful or incompatible with what I have then I will stop buying them.

Where do you store it all? :P


Information Management...so Profession: Scribe.

No magic here. :P


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Arachnofiend wrote:
Oh no, using a computer to manage information. In 2016. How horrible.

There's difference between using a computer because it's handy and using one because it's necessary.

But I suppose if you enjoy complexity for complexity's sake...


thejeff wrote:

They might keep the lights on, but having rules too made more money.

For that matter, I wasn't paying attention back in the 3E days, but did none of the bloat that WotC was putting out affect Paizo's adventures & settings? I guess if most of that wasn't OGL, maybe it didn't.

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.

thejeff wrote:

Is there a parallel situation now though? There are 3pp putting out adventures and settings for Pathfinder. Do any of them match your preference for lack of rules bloat?

Or do they use all Paizo's stuff since it's OGL?

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.


deinol wrote:

Paizo has one thing that few other RPG companies do: Subscriptions. They tweak or adjust lines if subscription numbers aren't meeting expectations. I've seen this first hand as a subscriber to Modules and Planet Stories.

If subscriptions to the core line begin to drop, they'll start tweaking things. If they continue to drop, hello 2nd edition. But from everything I've heard, subscriptions continue to grow.

I know I'm on the fence about continuing my core subscription. I think since Mythic I've been mostly disappointed in the non-bestiary books. I'm also one of the few people who thinks Mythic is the best thing to be added to Pathfinder since the APG.

That's a good point...I hadn't really considered subscriptions.


WormysQueue wrote:
bugleyman wrote:

In a way, that's why Paizo was so ideal in the 3E days.

HA! I knew that I wasn't alone with this thought.

Oh man, it was an amazing time. Sadly, it appears that adventures (or magazines, for that matter) don't keep the lights on any more.


Malwing wrote:
I guess that makes sense. Probably not going to happen but makes sense.

Thanks!

And no, I'm not holding my breath. ;-)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Malwing wrote:
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


WormysQueue wrote:

I'll give you that, though for me personally, that poses no problem, because I'm firmly convinced that any adventure needs to be at least partially reworked to be adapted to a specific groups playstyle, PC composition and general taste (obviously, I'm not talking organized play). So I'm doing that anyway.

Also depends on what kind of options we talk about. I guess that it's much easier to ignore and to replace new spells, feats or monsters than let's say the Mythic components of WotR.

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:

Except you can. . . there are plenty of options, many of which have been discussed here already--

First, if an AP uses non-core stuff they tend to print the rules right there in the book. You don't "need" anything except the module you are holding to run it.

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:


Third, if a NPC has a couple of options-- feats for instance, that are not in books you have or want to use, you can invest a small amount of time and just swap out those few options.

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:

Finally, you can just skip the subsystems you don't like if you find any of those other three options too onerous.

Yes, you can run Kingmaker without using Kingdom Builder rules (though Kingmaker introduced those rules before Ultimate Campaign)/

I suppose if you are dead set against Mythic you might want to skip the Mythic AP, and if you are dead set against Occult you might want to skip the Occult AP. . .

But skipping 6/100 modules because their subject matter doesn't interest you isn't really a "bloat" problem. . .

...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. ;-)


TriOmegaZero wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
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.
And those modules are obviously 'options other players have use for'.

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.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
WormysQueue wrote:
Which is also my general take on the "bloated" discussion. In my opinion there's no such thing as too much options, there's only options I have use for vs. options other players may have use for.
That is an excellent way of looking at it.

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.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Yeah, I don't have any interest in the boom/bust cycle either.

And this, right here, is why I take WotC to task for failing to offer 5E PDFs. I don't want to be at their mercy should they release a new edition which I don't like and inevitably stop producing the one I do.


Malwing wrote:
At this rate Paizo should start making 5e editions of their APs and rake in cash.

Don't I wish. Paizo's adventures have always been second to none. Their mechanics? Not so much.


Redbeard the Scruffy wrote:

And one opening sentence flaw does not in fact invalidate the rest of the post. Expand your circle or talk to those within it as adults.

Further, If you have players that are that stubborn, the problem isn't the system.

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.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Stefan Hill wrote:
Its the VHS vs Beta Max argument all over again...
Man, that is such a good comparison. I'll have to remember that in the future.

Network externalities.


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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Medriev wrote:

Frankly, nothing would make me stop buying PF products quicker than an announcement of a new edition.

PF is well supported by technology options that make managing the volume of content easier (Hero Lab is the best example of this IMHO) and in the published lines references to non-core products almost always include a full stat block / rules summary in case you haven't hoovered up every product (which I for the most part have anyway).

The big problem with 3E/3.5E bloat was that later products almost required you to own previous products and it was so difficult, in the absence of good IT solutions at the time, to keep track of every feat you might want or every monster you might want to use. PF solves both of these problems with a commitment to repeat non-core info where it's used and licensed software solutions (plus the PRD).

To my mind, the problems for players / GMs that usually lead to new editions therefore don't exit so unless there is a business reason (which I highly doubt there is at the moment) I see no reason for there to be a PF 2E in the foreseeable future.

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.

IMO:

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.


So is the argument that Teleport isn't broken as long as you don't let your players use it? I think that applies to pretty much every spell. :P


Hythlodeus wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Bloat is a thing.
debatable

They are people who literally believe that the earth is 6,000 years old. EVERYTHING is debatable.

That doesn't mean everything is worth debating.


Bloat is a thing. If it doesn't bother you, that's fine, but I don't see the point of bashing people you disagree with. We already have politics for that. ;-)


thejeff wrote:

Of course, water wheels date to Classical times, so you've got a pretty long period in between "water driven mill" and "industrial revolution".

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.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Int is easily my highest stat. Top 10% LSAT score, tested into Mensa, etc.

Cha is easily my lowest. I can be short-tempered and condescending...hardly a winning combination.

In the immortal words of the Dude: I'm not wrong, I'm just an a**hole. :P


BigNorseWolf wrote:
It gets a little strained when their inability to survive is only caused by their own stupidity.

This is a genre requirement. Real people, given sufficient resources and time, would simply slaughter all the zombies.

Of course, then you don't have a show...


themantheycallcris wrote:

We bought some colored and numbered stickers to put on these to give a quick and easy way to tell which pawn is which...

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B009J1EGWE

Nice tip, thanks! I think I'll give those a try.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread?

Nope.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

IMO merging Spot and Listen sounded great, but was ultimately a BAD IDEA(tm).


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.


Drakir2010 wrote:
I believe it has not. I grabbed a ruler and my two latest flip-mat classics last night (city streets and prison) and found that both were smaller than true inch squares.

That's unfortunate, but thank you very much for checking! :-)


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)?


bugleyman wrote:
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...


Can anyone confirm that the squares on this guy are actually one-inch? I purchased Flip Mat Classics: Ship, only to discover that the squares were ~3-4% smaller than an inch. >:(


Can anyone confirm that the squares on this guy are actually one-inch? I purchased Flip Mat Classics: Ship, only to discover that the squares were ~3-4% smaller than an inch. >:(


Can anyone confirm that the squares on this guy are actually one-inch? I purchased Flip Mat Classics: Ship, only to discover that the squares were ~3-4% smaller than an inch. >:(


Can anyone confirm that the squares on this guy are actually one-inch? I purchased Flip Mat Classics: Ship, only to discover that the squares were ~3-4% smaller than an inch. >:(


Can anyone confirm that the squares on this guy are actually one-inch? I purchased Flip Mat Classics: Ship, only to discover that the squares were ~3-4% smaller than an inch. >:(


ckdragons wrote:
When will this screen be offered in a landscape format instead of another new art cover?

Preach on, brother. The portrait screen infidels must pay!

***

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. :-)


Nope.


Just picked these up...sadly there were a few weeks late for the assault on Fort Rannick. Oh well.

Interestingly, mine came with two huge bases, despite the back of the box mentioning only large and medium bases. Anyone else get huge bases?

1 to 50 of 7,603 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

©2002–2015 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.