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

sunshadow21's page

Pathfinder Society Member. 3,534 posts (8,426 including aliases). No reviews. No lists. 1 wishlist. 30 aliases.


RSS

1 to 50 of 3,534 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

thejeff wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Not risks in terms of getting rid of or making drastic changes to their most successful characters.

That was specifically in terms of the early days.

Killing off Gwen Stacy and bringing in MJ was a pretty big deal in those early days that had a major impact on the Spiderman story. From what I've seen of the early X-Men books, they freely changed, killed, or wrote off multiple characters that didn't make their way back into the story until after the cartoon had started. They definitely did make risks with their big names and stuck with them in those early days. The goofiness didn't start immediately.


thejeff wrote:
Not risks in terms of getting rid of or making drastic changes to their most successful characters.

Steve Rogers is no longer Captain America.

Tony Stark is no longer Iron Man.

Thor is now an unknown female.

Peter Parker has no consistent storyline at this point and one major alternative to claim the name of Spiderman.

Ditto for Bruce Wayne and Batman. and Robin.

At least 3 Green Lanterns. and Flashs.

Superman and Wonder Woman have had their origins retconned to the point where most people stopped carrying about the precise one that DC wants to push at any given time.

The Fantastic 4 are now the Fantastic 3.

The X-Men in general are harder to follow than trying to trace a medieval family tree to its roots.

Admittedly, not all of these things have stuck or will stick, and many have been done multiple times, but enough have, even on the Marvel side, to disprove that statement easily.


thejeff wrote:
I don't think Marvel had more discipline in the early days. Characters didn't die and get replaced. In fact, they returned from the dead pretty frequently. Storylines were often little more than "What weird thing can happen this month?" DC's early days were too long ago for me to know much about them. Not at all impressed by what I've read of them. By the 70s, there was much silliness and little discipline. Think of the Superman of those days.

Marvel had enough discipline to establish both themselves and their characters in the face of Superman and DC, just like DC had the discipline to establish themselves and their characters. That is far more than can be said for either company today, though Marvel at least seems to be trying to change that recently. So yes, things were different initially than what they became in the 80s and 90s, where there was basically no discipline or focus at all.


thejeff wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Stopped being written mostly for kids.

Perhaps that was their biggest mistake. Kids in general have a much higher tolerance for what comic books have always been.

Regardless of the reason, there was a very real shift around that time that left both Marvel and DC largely running on a hamster wheel just trying to keep up with the changing times. Relying on established heroes and methods of story telling aren't going to get them off of that hamster wheel, now or ever.

I fundamentally don't agree with this. Or that it was all that different before.

So you think that Marvel and DC have always been this stagnant in terms of new character development and that they differentiated themselves from the competitors they faced in their early days by relying on the status quo? They couldn't have, otherwise we wouldn't be talking about them today. Any company their size had to take a fair number or risks, both calculated and otherwise, at some point in order to get there, more so given the limited nature of the market they serve.

You are basically arguing that neither company should even think about risking what they already have even though it's clear that what they currently have is a shrinking niche that is going to require a significant jolt to revive. I don't think that Marvel is in that mindset right now. They have already changed the character behind the three most recent successful heroes, significantly rewrote a fouth (the Hulk did not used to be that easy to control) and seem reasonably determined to stick to it. Especially given the reasonable success of the alternate Spiderman, their lack of ownership of the movie rights to Spiderman, and at least one semi-recent attempt to purge the number of X-Men, they seem to be willing to go out on a limb and back the changes up. More importantly, they have a large wave of public support to genuinely make it stick as long as the stories are good. They would be foolish not to at least try some risk.


thejeff wrote:
Stopped being written mostly for kids.

Perhaps that was their biggest mistake. Kids in general have a much higher tolerance for what comic books have always been.

Regardless of the reason, there was a very real shift around that time that left both Marvel and DC largely running on a hamster wheel just trying to keep up with the changing times. Relying on established heroes and methods of story telling aren't going to get them off of that hamster wheel, now or ever.


thejeff wrote:

That's only going to work if you can force them to do it and stick to it somehow.

You're relying on a discipline that the two companies have never had. Or ever aimed for.

What you'd really get is a reboot in a couple years to bring the old characters back.

Possibly, but people claimed that with the new Thor when it was first announced, and are quite likely to be proven wrong if they can pull off the reveal soon and well. You're right, it requires discipline that neither company has shown much interest in lately, but in the early days, they showed something of the discipline required, and we are having this conversation today because of it. Without that discipline in those early days, none of the now iconic heroes would likely have gained much traction and we would be talking of other things here. Simply feeding off the table scraps of yesterday, which is what both companies are doing right now, is not going to last forever, and discipline and focus in general is going to be needed to establish themselves as something more than the owners of yesterday's heroes.

Marvel is actually doing quite well on this front, so the upcoming relaunch will be interesting to see. If they go the route that DC did, and only do a partial reboot for a few of the characters while being unwilling to even glance at most of their sacred cows, they will have missed an opportunity to solidify the gains they have made through the movies. This is not to say that they should slay sacred cows for the sake of slaying sacred cows, but I really do hope that they at least took a long hard look at them before sparing them for reasons beyond not wanting to take a risk of any kind. Right now, they seem to have the management and the public support to take a certain amount of risk and do just fine without having to have nightmares of what life after Peter Parker might look like.


thejeff wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Why do we need to change old characters? If the new generation brings completely different characters, they are no longer the characters I love. If they have the same personality of their predecessors, what's the point of having a new generation?
You don't get it. It's not about you or what you love or hate. You're not the primary concern as you're reading comics already. It's about making them relevant to the younger generations.

The comics characters who have been the mainstays of the genre for 50 (and in some cases 80) years, finally need to be replaced for this generation? Despite being still more popular than any previous attempts to make relevant heroes?

I don't think so.

They need to change with the times. As they've done before and will continue to do. That requires more different writing and different approaches to the characters than either replacements or reboots.

Mind you, new versions have worked with less popular, less iconic second string characters. Ones who were actually losing their popularity, not just following the general drop in comics popularity.

I wouldn't exactly call being a mainstay of a genre that has been stagnant for most of the last three decades much of reason to automatically keep the old heroes around, especially if the goal is to diversify the types of people they have reading comics. Different writing and different approaches are not by themselves going to be enough in all cases. The idea of replacement must remain on the table even if it is not ultimately pursued immediately.


MMCJawa wrote:
From all I have seen, comic books are just a hard sell to a lot of people. I don't see how retiring known and popular characters somehow ENCOURAGES more people to buy into the medium

Directly, it wouldn't, but as a catalyst that would force Marvel and DC to actually get truly creative and come up with new characters, it could. I don't have a problem with the existing characters in and of themselves, just the general laziness it inspires when it comes to creating something newer to potentially strengthen the medium as a whole rather than relying the inertia of the fame of the existing heroes whose stories often are simply well known, not necessarily better written.


thejeff wrote:

I think the competition from other forms of entertainment is what's hurting comic sales. I don't think ditching their still top characters is going to fix that.

If Superman and Captain America aren't relevant anymore, why have they just had blockbuster movies? Why are they still top selling comics?

There's a difference between relevant and entertaining when it comes to comic book characters and that difference is a big reason why no new major heroes have really developed for a long time.

Entertainment has always been an important aspect of these characters, and continues to be, but they haven't always been pure entertainment. There was a pretty strict code of what was and was not acceptable to include in the comics because these characters were expected to exemplify what we could be and should aim to become, both as individuals and as a greater society. And, like it or hate it, it worked. Even into the late 60's, people bought into that whole idea and made some of the characters, like Captain America and Superman, almost national icons for a time.

By the 80's, though, that had pretty much ended; the code was gone, any sense of a unified message was gone, and comics were almost purely entertainment. While not entirely bad, the shift basically removed any need for the very few attempts at continuity that had been attempted in the past, making meaning that it was more practical to do what you do, which is to stick with a particular writer, not the characters directly. Comics still did reasonably well for a while because they did not yet have any major competition.

That has dramatically changed. Yes, the movies still do well, but most of the general public sees them as just another action flick, and not much more. Even among the comics, you see the splintering effect of alternate universes, alternate timelines, etc. to the point where the original core story is often all but lost as the focus became all about staying interesting and entertaining, which many of the side arcs that we still see today are, over telling an overarching story that really draws people in for the long haul.

For some people this is really great, but it's impact on overall relevance is not positive. They are now just another story that a few people will really, really like and everyone else pretty much reads or watches once and forgets it. There is virtually no long term draw or appeal to the character itself. You could replace the reel of any of the recent comic hero movies with any other decently written action or comic book movie, and most of the audience wouldn't have cared. There are a few that you couldn't only because of the quality of movie overall, the interaction between the individual actors, and other technical aspects of the movie, but rarely are the characters themselves the major draw for these movies. People didn't flock to Iron Man or Avengers because of Tony Stark; they did it because of Robert Downey, Jr.

New characters wouldn't be a silver bullet that automatically fixes these problems, nor would handing off the mask to someone else, but just sticking with the same old characters doesn't even attempt to fix the problem, so I fail to see why it is bad to even think about retiring them. It's not always going to be the best response upon further examination, but neither is refusing to even think about it.


phantom1592 wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Let's face it; while Steve Rogers and Clark Kent made a very good Captain America and Superman for their time, everything about them is based on a time and an ethos that simply does not exist anymore....

which time was 'their' time? The 30's? 50's? 80's? 2000's?

Frankly that is one of the things that I find so depressing. That having a decent, morally upright champion of 'good' isnt' relevant anymore.

It pretends that the past was some rosy wonderland where 'good guys' could flourish... but lets be honest. WWII, Depressions, Civil Rights, Watergate, etc. etc, weren't 'good' times. Characters like these should inspire... and in THIS day and age, I argue they are more needed then ever.

Whether they are needed and whether they are likely to be embraced are two different conversations. The first one is usually pretty straight forward, but but the second is much harder to get consensus on in this country right now. Everyone wants that champion, but no one can agree on what who that champion should be and what precisely he should stand for. Trying to establish a universal champion and inspiring people in a way that both Captain America and Superman did just brings out all the special interest groups that are upset that the champion doesn't specifically champion their major concern, and so therefore, he cannot legitimately considered a champion of anything good.


thejeff wrote:
Sure, it would be great if they could reliably turn out new characters that hit those heights, but they can't. And there's no reason to think that getting rid of the mainstays would change that.

Simply continuing to rely on the existing characters isn't going to help them any though, as the mainstays aren't all they used to be. This thread alone has talked about 2 different Batmans, 3 different Robins, 2 different Spidermans (+ a fair number of variants on Peter Parker's base story), 2 or 3 Green Lanterns, 2 Captain Americas, 2 Thors, and there was recently an entire multipage thread on the different X-Men over the years. All of that is before you get into the movie versions of all of these and other comic book characters. Trying to talk about any of these as if there is a consistent core character and story anymore for any of them is already extremely difficult. And it's just going to keep getting hard to justify the claim as time goes on. There is already less demand that Batman has to be Bruce Wayne or that Spiderman has to be Peter Parker. Done right, retiring Peter Parker or Bruce Wayne permanently is entirely plausible in that environment, especially if they couple it with the reprinting of the classic stories that feature the retired character that allow current readers to experience both stories without having to worry about continuity questions.

Short of a radical and complete reboot for everyone and literally starting over from scratch, I just don't see them doing much with the existing characters other than continuing the slow slide into a smaller and smaller niche. The older characters won't simply disappear over night, but they can and will continue to lose relevance across the general population, especially given the shifts in ages and cultures our country is facing. Let's face it; while Steve Rogers and Clark Kent made a very good Captain America and Superman for their time, everything about them is based on a time and an ethos that simply does not exist anymore. And stories like Spiderman and Batman have the difficulty that never ending stories without any meaningful resolution tend to lose meaning over time. They may still be interesting on a purely entertainment level, but given how much competition these stories have today in the realm of being purely entertainment, that doesn't mean as much as it used to.


Matthew Downie wrote:


Peter gets rebooted / refreshed / resurrected constantly. Let's see - in recent times he's had his mind erased completely and overwritten by Dr Octopus. Before that, he had his past rewritten and his marriage erased by making a deal with a demon. Before that, he revealed his secret identity to the world and was given a new high-tech spider suit by Iron Man. Before that, I seem to remember something about him turning into a spider-monster and dying and being reborn? And before that he was a clone of himself. And before that he was attached to the Venom symbiote.

That's how comics stop characters going stale. Yes, some of the character events are pretty silly, but it means when they return to a the status quo (usually with a new variation, such as him having a job as a scientist instead of a photographer, getting a new girlfriend, or whatever) and enough time has passed that it seems interesting to have him fighting regular super-villains again.

The problem is that you can't rely on short term gimmicks forever. They stop the bleeding caused by boredom, but they don't really do much to help with growth because the loss of continuity drives just as many people away. And that is my biggest difficulty with how Marvel and DC have been approaching the problem; they either have to say to heck with continuity or hope enough time has passed since the last time they pulled out a particular villain that enough people have forgotten enough about that particular plot for it to be interesting again. They have largely forgotten how to create interesting new content that doesn't completely change or ignore the existing material and heroes. If they could show a capability to do that, I would be less worried about their use of silly side arcs, but when that kind of side arc becomes the norm, they stop trying to genuinely evolve and develop the character in ways that allow for changes to the character that don't seem entirely out of place.


thejeff wrote:
You're still assuming that Peter Parker needs new life breathed into him. Peter's doing just fine. You might not like him, but he's quite popular. Why are you so insistent that any fix to sales problems with other characters involve major changes to Peter Parker?

Because Peter Parker is not doing all that well overall, nor is Bruce Wayne, or Clark Kent. They are doing well compared to other characters, but that doesn't take much, and they have long since plateaued. Their movies, while still blockbusters, are very up and down, with some of them doing really well, and some of them being really bad. It's also notable that it was Iron Man and Guardians of the Galaxy that really got people outside the existing fanbase talking, not Spiderman or Batman. The fact that they have variant comic lines that are talked about just as much or more than the main comic (I've seen as many or more references to the alternate Spidermans in this thread than I have to the officially canon Spiderman), and, with DC at least, frequently push the original character off to the side/replace the original character in even the main line hurts your argument, rather than helping it. It shows that the base concept is still interesting, but that a lot of people are getting tired of the original characters and stories that have comparatively little to offer in terms of insights on the base concept.

The underlying problem both Marvel and DC have is that neither company has really produced a new major super hero in last two decades; the few random accidental ones, like Wolverine, are the exception rather than the rule, and even those have mostly been was putting out the right story at the right time to elevate existing heroes. They have the same problem that D&D novels have; the brightness of the bigger stars hides the fact that they really don't have much beyond the stars. Marvel actually has a chance to break this if the next string of movies succeeds (I suppose DC technically does too, but they are a bigger long shot), but even than, it's still relying on characters, villains, and plots that were developed a generation of writers ago. Unless they start cultivating writers that are capable of writing completely new material that people want to read, they are going to continue to have the same problem they do now, and eventually, it will catch up to them.

I don't think they need to change the big names immediately or without a good story to back it up, but both companies do need to be aware that the time is coming where they might need to make significant changes to their leading lineup and need to start planning accordingly. The big stars are starting to show their age, and will need to either be revamped (not just rebooted again), retired, or replaced sooner rather than later.


thejeff wrote:

I don't understand your argument. Are you saying they need to get rid of their top sellers so that people might pay attention to their other characters?

I'm saying that at this point, all options need to be left on the table, and that includes tampering with or retiring their big heroes if doing so has a reasonable chance of succeeding without being a short term gimmick. Clearly, the changes need to be thought out and executed well, but ideas like maybe Peter Parker doesn't have to be Spiderman all of his life need to be at least considered. If they can find a writer capable of breathing new life into Peter Parker while doing a genuine reboot, great; if they can find a writer that will be able to convince people that someone else can be Spiderman, than let Peter retire, and give the costume to someone else.

Ultimately, its about not just relying what has partially worked before and figuring out a more complete toolset that will allow them to keep characters fresh without having to worry about rebooting them constantly.


thejeff wrote:
If the big stars are selling well and the second string isn't, seems to me the problem is with the other characters. Change them up, not the ones that are selling.

If they aren't willing to make significant changes to the big titles, both companies may as well stop publishing anything not at least second string, since virtually no one will pay attention to them anyway, and accept that the room for growth for the second string characters is going to be limited at best and quite possibly nonexistent. Refusing to risk their big stars is not an option in this market, since not changing them and attempting yet another reboot is just as risky as attempting to retire them or significantly rewrite the character.


thejeff wrote:
Retiring the big stars of your franchise because some of your long term readers think they're played out is just a horribly bad business idea.

So is rehashing the same story over and over again. Yes, it will, and does work, for a few heroes, but if that's the only tool they have to keep selling comics, they are going to not sell many other comics aside from the big stars, and that will limit their ability to support the big stars. Again, I don't think that retirement is absolutely necessary in most cases, but advocating for just another reboot is equally problematic for the companies. They need to find something in between, and work their way towards making retirement a more plausible solution the next time they need to refresh the heroes.


thejeff wrote:

But Spiderman, Superman, and Batman are still among the best sellers. They hold down multiple titles each. They're profitable movie franchises. These are the popular heroes that everyone knows and that actually sell comics. Why drastically change them?

You may be bored with them. I may even be bored with them. That doesn't mean they have a problem.

Except that your post includes many things that will become problems sooner rather than later, and have long been problems for most of the rest of the super heroes out there. Multiple titles gets confusing for new readers of the comics, and there are so many versions of each of them most people wouldn't even bother counting them any more. They can get away with repeating the same choices they've made in the past for these few characters for a while still, but that really doesn't help the state of comics overall, and eventually it won't work for these heroes either.

I'm not saying that reboots are automatically a bad choice, but both Marvel and DC have to be willing to explore other options as well where appropriate. Reboots cannot be the only tool they use to keep things fresh if they want to sustain their business; they don't always work and can do a fair bit of harm if done incorrectly. They need to be willing to put some genuinely new characters out there, retire some of the old ones that it makes sense to (and yes, I firmly believe that Peter Parker is one of these; there's only so much of him I can take, and I reached my limit a long time ago; it's not even boredom at this point, it flat out annoyance; his story wears thin quickly), either permanently or by handing off the torch to a new generation, or completely and genuinely reboot most of the remainder. What I don't want to see is another soft reboot that doesn't really change the status quo and fails to create room for genuinely new stories.


thejeff wrote:

Or they could just try telling good stories with the existing characters and adding new ones as they go. Change in emphasis as needed without explicit reboots. Don't try to drive sales with giant cross-over events.

--------

Maybe I'm looking at this too simply and the real problem is that their most popular characters have become too complicated and need to be gotten rid of or completely redone.

Those are the biggest issues I've seen with a lot of these character, especially the big solo ones like Spiderman, Superman, and Batman. They have already told so many stories from so many angles for over five decades now that coming up with new stories or new angles on old themes while retaining the same core character is getting harder and harder. Marvel actually has less of an issue precisely because it can do the crossovers and get more angles that way, not to mention that many of the heroes are part of groups and thus have far more built in storylines, but it still has the problem of getting overly complicated, as the X-Men lines of comics are showing these days.

Both companies are a point where most of the current top heroes need to either be retired or taken back to their very, very, very first issue ever produced and started over entirely in order for a reboot to really considered a reboot. It's risky either way, but the longer they hold off on doing either, the harder either option becomes. Their only other option is to do things like rewrite Thor as a female to try to respark some interest and hope it holds long enough for the rewrite to stick, which is equally risky. They don't really have a good option right now, so it will be interesting to see what Marvel ends up doing.


It's a tough difficulty that both Marvel and DC are facing. While aging existing characters is risky, they can't just keep rebooting the same hero over and over again either. That strategy worked for a few decades, but it's becoming less and less effective every time they do it, because they can do less and less of a full reboot each time they do it, dampening it's overall value to the new reader. The mixed success of DC's new launch shows that at this point, reboot don't have an inherent advantage over retiring the old characters and trying to establish new ones. Going forward, they are going to have to look at each character and find a mixture of solutions that work for that particular character. Some characters at this point could be aged and replaced with more ease than a reboot, others need to be genuinely rebooted, and taken all the way back to their original roots because they have been retconned so many times they have lost their original pull.

The thing that can be said with absolute certainty is that Marvel's approach and the results will be interesting to see.


DR 1/- is pretty powerful because it can be worked with many other abilities, skills, or gear to strengthen the overall build. By itself, it won't help against most level appropriate monsters, but there are lots of ways to boost it, and even without a boost, it helps the barbarian ignore the lower level minions that rely on numbers rather than strong single blows. It also does a good job of letting barbarians frequently ignore swarms, something that even at level 7 isn't always that easy to do. In the end, it doesn't do much by itself, but it can combined with a wide variety of things to have a much larger effect. It can serve as a base for rage powers that enhance it; it can work well as part of a larger defense strategy that includes AC as well; it works well with a strategy of getting as much HP as possible and simply wading through the minions to get to the boss. That is its real power; pretty much every barbarian build out there can find a way to take advantage of it and use it in conjunction with other abilities, skills, feats, or gear. Very few barbarians will be willing to completely ignore it and forget it entirely.


Charlie Brooks wrote:
If they're trying to mask verbal components, I call for a Bluff check. For somatic/material components, I call for a Sleight of Hand check. The roll would be opposed by an observer's Sense Motive or Spellcraft, whichever is higher.

That is more or less how I approach it.


There were spots where the execution of the story was good, unfortunately, there were far too many spots where it was still too far over the top for most people to really get into it. As a whole, it suffered tremendously from it's very poor execution; a few good spots and an overall plot that was actually fairly decent were not in the end generally enough to counteract all of the bad writing it had.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I thoroughly hate people that say that that casting can never be hidden, and I thoroughly disagree with the RAW ruling on this. It shouldn't be easy, and it shouldn't be automatic, but it should be doable. All that saying it can't be done without specific class abilities does is make it so that most enchantment and illusion spells, as well as many other spells, can't be used in most of the situations they are most relevant, and that strikes me as being counterproductive. I get that they shouldn't be easy, but usually functionally impossible seems a bit over the top for me.

If a caster is willing to invest skill points in the the appropriate skill or silent or still metamagic feat, or asks for a custom feat, I have no problem giving them the opportunity to try to hide their casting. They still have a chance of failure and they have invested something into improving their chances of success that could have gone elsewhere.


I'm thinking about a gnomish bard with either the brigand or pioneer trait and a hobby of brewing. Will start working on a full writeup shortly.


How are you looking to handle the different leadership roles? Are you figuring on having PCs fill as many of them as possible, or having npcs fill in holes that the party can't/doesn't want to fill?


dotting. Need to think about which concept I have in my head that will work best.


Muad'Dib wrote:
All NPC's (GM or player created) belong to the GM. They are his/hers to do with as they need to further advance the story, provide drama, and are tools to grow the campaign.

That's true and not true at the same time. Even in the earliest of editions, there were npcs like familiars that belonged to a specific character and were part of what was used to measure that character's total power. These npcs have never truly belonged entirely to DM, and good DMs figured this out quickly. The line where DM control and player control has shifted dramatically over time, to the point where in PF, these types of npcs often are for all practical purposes, secondary PCs, but even in the most DM controlled system, the player still had significant say in the creation and running of these npcs.

Very few DMs, even in the early days where players were willing to give DMs a lot of control, could get away with telling a player trying to attract a rat familiar with a summon familiar spell that the PC was going to get an imp and like it, even if they were a lawful good wizard that had sworn his life to killing demons. Likewise, a PC going to look with a cohort with certain personality traits or skills would have good reason to balk if the DM tried to force one of three generic cohorts on the PC and none of the three choices even began to match what the PC was looking for.

The actual running of these npcs runs into similar issues; sure, a DM could run them anyway they wanted technically, and most good DMs could get away with the occasional plot twist that relied on the cohort betraying the party, but for the most part, these were npcs that were at the table because the PCs wanted them there and things generally go far more smoothly when the DM recognizes this, and either let the PCs control these npcs under normal circumstances or run them themselves in a similar manner than the PC would have except in rare instances where it genuinely helps the story for everyone at the table.


ElterAgo wrote:

If the GM decides my familiar is going to be lazy and obnoxious so every time I want it to do something I have to spend 10 minutes trying to talk it into following direction or every time we are in a social setting it insults people until we get thrown out (or in jail). Well guess what, I would be upset. The GM has turned an integral part of my character into a severe penalty that I can't do anything about.

If the GM occasionally says something like my beetle wants to get its carapace painted electric blue, that's great. Exactly the kind of thing I would do. Not a problem.

But if you aren't going to constantly mess with it/me, why do you need to bother making such a big deal about how only you control it and can do whatever you want?

This pretty much sums up my view. These are things that players often spend significant resources on to get and they are basing a fair bit of their character's overall effectiveness on these side characters, which makes them more than an npc. For those two reasons, as long as they are being played intelligently and as long as the player is treating them as actual characters with their own personalities, etc., and not mindless tools, a good DM should generally leave those things alone, aside from the occasional comment like the beetle wanting to get his carapace painted. I as a DM will always retain veto power over any side characters or summoned creatures a player might bring to the table and will have a say in the creation process of any such characters, but as long as they are played reasonably intelligently, they belong to the player to a sufficient degree that I treat them as secondary PCs, not npcs.

Now in different games or editions, I might be willing to set the bar differently based on how much the PC has invested in and relies on these secondary characters for their overall effectiveness, but for PF, these are all significant investments and choices that come with significant costs, and I am not going to penalize a player that chooses to accept those costs by further limiting the usefulness of their choices, nor as a player will I accept any further restrictions or DM interference without an equal reduction in cost or reliance on them when calculating my character's overall effectiveness.

Followers, family members, and other background related are a bit different in that a player is never going to be directly controlling these characters, so they are still quite firmly in the npc territory, and I will treat them accordingly. They are npcs that I will accept input from the player on, especially if I do anything that is unexpected, but they are still npcs, and mine to control. The players get some say in the creation process of these things, but how and when they come up in play is largely at my discretion as a DM, though the player can do things to influence these aspects with the appropriate role playing if they wish to have more influence on these aspects.


Jester David wrote:

But this isn't a case of "which is better". In this case Paizo really isn't much better. Both companies are sitting around waiting for gamers to discover them, relying on individual home groups and gamers to bring non-gamers into the fold.

No one really seems to have any idea of how to branch out beyond the established pool of gamers.

So it's really a question of whether either can figure out the solution, and if so, who does it first? Paizo has the organization and the ability to turn small successes into larger successes while WotC, if they chose to, could potentially throw more resources at it. I'd still bet on Paizo if I had to bet; they are already having at least minor success with novels and have a computer game in development, as well as the know how to take full advantage of any successes in those arenas. WotC, for all that it should have a very clear advantage, lacks both leadership and focus, which hurts them far more than Paizo's lack of name recognition hurts Paizo. Even when they do get a boost or a success, they can't/don't use it for anything, and it eventually fades away leaving them back where they started with no clear path of how to get beyond that starting point permanently.


Jester David wrote:
There's no real focus or attention on walking new players through the process

That's the one single thing that WotC's site has that Paizo's doesn't, and even that is often dealt with on Paizo's site via the advice section of the forums. While a place for formal guides like that would be nice, if that is the worst complaint made about the site, it's doing quite well. WotC's site, for all that is very pretty, falls far short of that bar; what is there tends to be decent enough, but there is far too much that isn't there and isn't even accessible from there.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jester David wrote:

But it's not the be-all-end-all.

----------------
The best potential improvement I've seen is the D&D website, with the basic rules as a free PDF and the new hyperlinked rules. So the start up cost for beginning to play is $0. Because when someone is curious about the game the first thing they're going to do Google it. And a few small tweaks like How-to-Play videos would help.
This is a way Paizo is lagging behind. Their website is... well, it hasn't majorly changed in ten years. It's not easy to navigate and is really more of a webstore than a site dedicated to a game.

The key is that nothing by itself is the ultimate solution, but rather an entire chain of smaller, more focused solutions, and that is what WotC had, and Paizo has today.

Paizo has the APs for the home crowd, organized play to get the local retailers involved, a number of product lines for the core rules, companion books, and accessories to augment both of the above, a license that lets 3rd party publishers get in on the process, and a strong online component to bring in that crowd. They all work together to strengthen each other and produce a result greater than the sum of its parts.

WotC, on the other hand, has a bunch of largely separate product lines that have little or no relation to each other which limits any success from bolstering all of the other areas of the brand. Unless they change this, a successful movie or video game or anything else that resonates in the main stream media isn't going to help them much. They also have virtually no online or electronic presence, hampering them further.
--------
As for the second point, about all Paizo really needs to do a front page that would then direct people to the various things on the website, like the different forums, the store, and the online rules. That's a very minor gripe, though, and most people manage to navigate the site just fine without it. As for WotC's website, I've seen it and I'm not impressed. They actually make it harder to find most of the relevant stuff in the process of trying to make it easier, and the archives have been completely removed, reducing its usefulness for a lot of people. I'll take Paizo's website any day. It's not perfect, but it has far more information on it and once you figure out the basic setup, it's not that hard to navigate.


Jester David wrote:
I think D&D/PF players were about ready for a change. It's a good time for a new RPG.

I'll believe this when I see it happen in the marketplace and not just on forums. There is definitely a notable group of players that are ready for a change, but I'm not convinced that the OGL crowd is really that ready for a change. I think ACG is actually a good indicator of that; a lot of people didn't like the book, but still had enough faith overall in Paizo to buy it and continue to support the company and the system. I don't think an updated version of Pathfinder would be a autosuccess, but I don't think it's an autofailure either. A lot of people still clearly want a well written, actively supported OGL 3.x style game, and Paizo has proven themselves to be one of the better companies to provide that while being able to learn from their mistakes. They have had weak books in the past and gotten over them with virtually no residual impact. As long Unchained is noticeably better than the ACG and also shows signs that they learned from the ACG, most people will continue to have faith in them. After all, even with WotC, it wasn't until they had a string of really bad supplements at the end of 3.5 that people really started getting upset.

As for being a new system, this is a good time and a bad time. People looking for new entertainment is high, but so is skepticism and attention spans are inversely much shorter, meaning that sustaining interest is harder even if the initial launch is easier. Getting people interested and getting people invested are two different things, and it's the latter that really supports a brand. Unfortunately, that is also the step that is much harder in the current entertainment market. Paizo has done surprisingly well in this area, and it's a key part of their success. They may not get as many eyeballs as WotC does with a better known brand, but the eyeballs they do get are far more likely to stick around and put money behind the first glances. If I were a WotC executive, I would not be overly excited about the success of the launch, though I would be cautiously optimistic, until I saw numbers for repeat buyers, especially since they have far less product lines than Paizo, and thus, getting people to buy into that product line repeatedly is going to be far more important to them than it is for Paizo and any single line.


Jester David wrote:
I don't think any RPG has really managed to find a good way of continuing to be a presence.

Actually WotC did at one point during 3rd do exactly this and PF continues to do so using almost exactly the same model. Using organized play and third party publishers to truly invest others in the continued development and active support meant that WotC didn't have to spend all that much on marketing because others were doing it for them. Paizo is doing the same now by spending their marketing on cultivating a strong community within the real movers and shakers of the industry and player base.

The problem WotC had with 4th, and are likely to have with 5th, is that their focus on the individual DM vs a larger community. Encounters, for all that it did well, ended up being almost like extra large home games rather a true living campaign or organized play setting, which helped in some ways, but also limited its marketability, especially since it still had many of the limitations that organized play of any kind tend to have. It didn't really truly show off the system, and whatever they come up with for 5th along those lines won't either. An OGL of some kind would help with the third party publishers, but that's still an if, not a when, and even if they do put one out, 3PP's aren't going to just dive into it. Most of them already have a lot invested in Pathfinder, and will likely find the business climate of doing business with Paizo more comfortable than trying to work with WotC again on a permanent basis, at least initially.

Getting individual DMs who only run home games excited is good and important, but it's not the first or only step in a good marketing plan. Paizo doesn't succeed because they cater to the home games first or only; they succeed because the APs, which cater to the home games, and organized play, which pulls in leadership from around the community, support and feed off of each other, generating constant self advertising. They further strengthen this by maintaining strong ties with the indy publishing companies, bringing in even more leadership and active support. WotC had this with 3rd, did not with 4th, and will struggle to get this with 5th. It's not that 5th is bad; it's just that the system does not actively support such an ecosystem the way that 3rd/PF does and WotC doesn't seem to understand how they succeeded in the first place, and actually started losing a lot of their strength late in 3.5 when they started abandoning the OGL instead of working with the greater community to fix it.


Galnörag wrote:

I'm not sure I follow the logic around why the third place matters, the ratings are usually without comment to dollars spent, it is never clear if it was a close tie for first and a distant third, or a more even spacing, nor does it really speak to overall consumer spend. It isn't a zero sum game, just because a consumer spends $1 on a Hasbro product, it doesn't mean they didn't spend a different $1 on a Paizo product. For some consumers they have a limited budget, but others like myself bought both Paizo and Hasbro products this quarter. I bought the products from both lines that interested me. Now, not all consumers have this level of disposable income, but many of the older gamers who have played many generations of D&D do, and they may pick up the core rules for any number of reasons, nostalgia, curiosity, or seeing what they can apply to their own games (never mind actual intent to play).

Like others have said, a raising tide raises all boats, if Hasbro brings back, or brings new gamers to the market that is good for all games. Paizo is also well positioned with its miniature and gaming accessories lines to be system agnostic.

On a tangent, can Wizkids show up on the RPG list because their D&D/Pathfinder Battles lines are for an RPG? In which case, I think Wizkids will be a contender for 3rd place easy.

Consistently dropping below 3rd would be problematic since Paizo only has one consistent major competitor. 3rd gives room for the occasional bad period to leave a space for an indy publisher to sneak in with a particularly strong product every once in a while while showing that Paizo still has enough overall income to pay the bills. Consistently dropping below that would likely create difficulties that could start to impact future plans. That's why I drew that line where I did. As time goes on, that line could move, but for now, it seems like the most reasonable delineation.


Even when they do a completely revised crb, I wouldn't expect massive changes the way that WotC seems to think they have to happen. I would expect to see different/revised core races and classes, with a few alternate racial abilities and archetypes, and a handful of major changes to the rules with everything else being mostly tweaks and clarifications, though I would love to see a major change to how those rules are laid out and presented, especially the magic and spells to make it clearer what can be done to counter any given spell or tactic. PF Unchained seems to reinforce those expectations as it looks at most commonly complained about classes and systems and how to fix them while still staying largely within the existing framework.


Jester David wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Jester David wrote:
Hence why the third ICv2 ranking will be telling.
I see where you are coming from, but I don't think a single ranking is going to make much difference as long as they never fall below number 3. No single sales period is going to determine anybody's success or failure. The average of the next 3 or 4 after this spring one is going to be a far more accurate measure of sustainability.

True, but it worked in 2010 when Paizo began its ascent.

What I'm amused by is all the people who dismissed the Amazon rankings and ICv2 chart when Paizo was winning pointing D&D's position now.

That's true enough, though personally, I've always found the overall trends of aggregate scores more important than any single one, so my position really hasn't changed much except that recent history and current product favor Paizo over WotC, whereas when Paizo was just starting Pathfinder, I would have said otherwise. The big question is whether WotC can create their own momentum with little or no help from anyone else at the start the same way Paizo did. They couldn't with 4E, so it will be interesting to see how things develop.


Jester David wrote:
Hence why the third ICv2 ranking will be telling.

I see where you are coming from, but I don't think a single ranking is going to make much difference as long as they never fall below number 3. No single sales period is going to determine anybody's success or failure. The average of the next 3 or 4 after this spring one is going to be a far more accurate measure of sustainability.


Anastasius Brightstar wrote:
The problem with support spells that he wouldn't have to keep track of, is that if he's not contributing damage to the battle, he doesn't feel like he's contributing at all. Which is why I really wish we could've convinced him to play LG, so I could just hand him the paladin sheet until he really learned the mechanics.

It would require some work, but maybe you could find a way to have bard spell slots boost his bardic performance rather than being used for spells and have his bardic performance be his "magic." Maybe let him feed spell slots into bardic performance to increase his rounds/day available or give bigger boosts from inspire courage and the like. Or maybe substitute the support spells on the bard list with attack spells that he has regularly used as a magus. It would simplify the character sheet. Most of the bardic performances would boost him as well as others, so it would be support, but he would directly benefit from it as well. Also, once he starts a performance, he can sustain it and attack at the same time with no special rules being required to do so. Give him arcane duelist, and he gets some nice combat feats as well. It would take some tinkering to figure out how to pull it off, but probably no more than holding his hand all the time like you are right now.


Jester David wrote:
Too much stuff to directly quote

You have valid points, and Paizo is definitely going to have to work hard to maintain what they have, but WotC really isn't in that much better of a position. When all is said and done, when looking at where both companies and the rest of the industry stand today, WotC does not have an inherent advantage.

WotC has the brand, the history, and a solid boost from the core books, but they also have a lot of burned bridges and bad memories from 4E, and they have not yet shown that they have a release schedule or business plan that will genuinely support the new edition. They are still relying largely on what they want to brand to become rather than what it is now, making it that much less likely that they will ever actually pull off their grandiose dreams. They also have zero understanding of the new digital world that a lot of people are increasingly living in, which will hurt them in the long run. In short, they have a lot of catching up to do just to get back to where they were at the end of 3.5, when they had already started on their downward slide.

Paizo, while it lacks history, has very strong and dedicated leadership and a clear plan of development. They may not have the cross marketing yet, but they are already laying the groundwork to get it, and get in a way that strengthens the core products at the same time. They have enough different product lines that even if the rules line plateaus for a while as they build a bridge to an updated version of Pathfinder, they still have plenty of uncontested income. No one can compete with the APs, and it's the APs that ultimately drive most of their sales throughout all the product lines, not the rule books. Even if WotC manages to get some decent adventures out there, Paizo has a faithful following from their days of running the magazine that will be hesitant to jump over to WotC without a lot more proof that WotC has truly changed its ways for the better. Paizo also has a far better grasp on electronic support and cultivating the wider community, making it hard for WotC to automatically poach the real movers and shakers away from the Paizo fold. For them, 5E is mostly just another challenge, not the ultimate test of survival you make it out to be.

The rpg industry as whole is much stronger now as well, and with their greater understanding of electronic media, which allows them to bypass many of the more expensive aspects of publishing that WotC had a major advantage in before, and a greater flexibility to quickly put out niche material, all of the indy publishers combined pose a real challenge to WotC, both in the content they put out on their own and the very real investment that many of them have in Pathfinder and working with Paizo.

In the end, no one has a real edge in the upcoming year or two. Everyone has significant strengths and everyone has significant weaknesses. Anyone thinking that the nostalgia factor or the promise of a future movie is going to help WotC in their very real current challenges is going to be severely disappointed. WotC is going to have to fight just as hard as everyone else to find sustained success.


I would also have to suggest bard with an archetype that focuses on combat rather than the singing and support. Or maybe skald, though I haven't looked at it enough to know how complex that is compared to Magus. Create a build with either or both and have him try it for one session to see if he likes it any better than the magus. A lot of people, especially new people, aren't going to automatically understand that archetypes can often be used quite effectively to get the same type of character in a different base class. Having him try something else for one or two sessions as a test run could help him understand that there are other ways to accomplish the overall feel of the magus with less complexity.


Kryzbyn wrote:
I hope 5th ED is successful. More gamers may join the fold, then it's a win/win.

I think it's already achieved that goal, and I am glad to say that I was wrong in my expectations on that count. I just don't think it's nearly as much of an industry changer as so many are treating it to be.


I give up. You have clearly already decided to not listen to anything I say, so congratulations, you win, I am an ass, and you are clearly completely in the right on everything. Happy now? Can we please get back to the interesting conversation?

Sorry to everyone else for this one, but when people choose to bite at me, I'm not going to simply roll over.


Kryzbyn wrote:
Ok it's been acknowledged plenty by now, I believe. This isn't the Spanish inquisition.

By most, yes, and I haven't had a problem with most, just the one who decided that I was obviously attacking him personally.


Matthew Downie wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
it definitely sounded like it was more or less an instant thing that had no major lingering side effects, which is definitely not going to work in even the loosest of rulesets that I am aware of
I don't find it particularly difficult to imagine that someone else's game could have events like 'since our last gaming session, this character has spent a few months retraining, and now all his ranger levels are druid levels' or 'this character is restarting from level 1 as a druid in accordance with whatever rules made sense to Gary Gygax at the time, and since our adventures don't involve balanced classes / levels in the first place that's not a big problem for us'.

That's still a bit of rule bending, though, and while not bad, needs to acknowledged as such. It's not necessarily bad, but it requires a break from the rules, both written and unwritten, that the group had been following. Some groups will be far more comfortable with that than others, so it does need to be acknowledged as part of the discussion.


Muad'Dib wrote:
sunshadow21 wrote:
Muad'Dib wrote:
This is a complete fabrication. I never at any point stated that I bend rules and you continue to state I do. Right now you are the Steve Emerson of the Paizo forums.
Either you didn't tell the complete story or didn't tell the complete story clear enough, and the actual change did not occur immediately, or you bent the heck out of some rules. If it's the former, then you need to refine how you are describing your examples, because the way you described them, it definitely sounded like it was more or less an instant thing that had no major lingering side effects, which is definitely not going to work in even the loosest of rulesets that I am aware of, and if it's the latter, even if it was a perfectly reasonable thing for that group and campaign, it is still bending rules and needs to be recognized as such for the purposes of the wider discussion.

No Steve I don't need to explain or refine anything for you since you did not ask the question. And given how contrary you act to give you more detail is a fools errand. Matthew politely asked for some examples and I tried to keep them as concise as I could not be burdened him with a wall of text.

But in this case, the details actually do matter, so you left out a lot of relevant information, and than took it as a personal attack when someone didn't react exactly the way you were expecting. I have no real problem with your base position, but at least with what you have posted on this thread, you have not supported it all that well where others have. If you want to take that as a personal attack, be my guest, but it was not intended as such.

In the end, you seem to be arguing that zero planning of any kind is required where something like switching from ranger to druid is always to going to require some kind of planning to avoid long term problems, even if it comes after the decision to have it happen. That is what I am responding to. If that is not your argument, than I apologize, but you could be doing a lot better at making your actual argument much clearer, and yes, I fully understand that I often need to do the same. This can still be a very interesting and fruitful conversation, but only if you stop insisting on taking everything so personally right off the bat.


Jester David wrote:
If D&D wins this period it won't be a good sign for Paizo and the Pathfinder RPG. Not at their current numbers and amount of content.

I love all of these dire predictions for Paizo if they don't automatically trounce 5E. You are right in that it will probably be a quiet year for them, but that doesn't mean that they are automatically out of the game; they have had a lot of very active years lately and quiet years happen from time to time. As long as they stay in the top 3 during this lull, they are still going to be a force to be reckoned with for some time. And frankly, I'll believe all of your predictions on all the 5E product past this spring (and even some of the spring predictions) when I see it actually happen. The core books did better than expected, but one (or two at most) option books and a handful of adventures aren't going to change the industry. Also, a lot of people are going to try 5E, and decide it's not for them, and go back to whatever system they were using before, which in a large number of cases will be Pathfinder.

5E, while it had a successful launch, and will continue to do well, is not the industry changer that will put WotC back on top that many claim it to be. It is solid, but it has weaknesses and holes and a lot of competition.


Muad'Dib wrote:
This is a complete fabrication. I never at any point stated that I bend rules and you continue to state I do. Right now you are the Steve Emerson of the Paizo forums.

Either you didn't tell the complete story or didn't tell the complete story clear enough, and the actual change did not occur immediately, or you bent the heck out of some rules. If it's the former, then you need to refine how you are describing your examples, because the way you described them, it definitely sounded like it was more or less an instant thing that had no major lingering side effects, which is definitely not going to work in even the loosest of rulesets that I am aware of, and if it's the latter, even if it was a perfectly reasonable thing for that group and campaign, it is still bending rules and needs to be recognized as such for the purposes of the wider discussion.


Tormsskull wrote:
Matthew Downie wrote:


Am I supposed to have my Ranger start taking levels of Monk because I've met an ancient monkish guru and am staying in his monastery?

No, but let's take a different possibility. You have a Fighter character in a custom world. Your Fighter adventures, helps a city, and as a reward, the city's leadership grants your Fighter access to special skills (a prestige class.)

Members of this prestige class are known for their ability to deflect attacks. Mechanically, this is an ability that is granted at level 1 of the prestige class.

Does your Fighter accept the training and take a level in the prestige class?

If your answer is "no, because the character doesn't want to feel like he's indebted to the city," or any other number of reasons that make sense in-character, there's no problem.

But if your answer is "no, because that means I won't get a feat this level and I really want this other feat by level 9," then it seems like you're prioritizing the character's mechanics over the story line.

Or perhaps you try to fake it, and call yourself a (insert name of prestige class here), but don't actually take levels in it.

To each their own, but option 2 or 3 seem like they really detract from the imaginative style of the game.

That is a reasonable response, and I completely agree with it. Those who make a plan and insist that they must follow it to the letter and every detail are just as annoying as those that claim they never do any planning at all.


Muad'Dib wrote:
Quote:
It's still the people you are playing with, which is always going to be the biggest hurdle you have, with the base system having remarkably little impact in the end.

And again you back up your non apology with inference about how I run my games.

I make no claim that Pathfinder is worse than other systems. I absolutely love playing Pathfinder, it does many things very well. But it is no secret that I do not enjoy GMing the game. I have personal preferences as do we all or am I not allowed to have an opinion?

Do me a favor and just stop with the conjecture.

Note the bolded section, as it is highly relevant to this discussion and my replies. If the people you are playing with are happy, that's all that matters. Also, you do imply that PF is worse, at least for you, because you keep saying that you prefer other systems, at least for DMing, which again takes us back to the bolded line.

I am simply pointing out that your issue seems to be one of wanting a specific type of play style or story, which in my experience relies more on the people in a specific group than the base system, and that rule bending is still rule bending; even if it's in a system or group where that isn't seen as a major problem, the fact that you are still having to bend the rules becomes very relevant when having a larger discussion that involves others that may see it as a much larger concern.


Muad'Dib wrote:

Sunshadow you assume a lot. At no point did I ever say I treat the rules casually and I'm not sure how you even inferred that. You have been giving the middle finger to all my posts so why would this one be any different.

-MD

I'm sorry that you see my posts that way, but it's hard not to infer that there is a fair amount of disregard of the rules in those stories and most of the stories that claim to highlight the "freedom of storytelling" that people claim can be found in earlier editions or other systems. 2nd edition had race restrictions on who could multiclass into what and attribute restrictions on who even technically qualified for a class; the only real difference between those and what people did in 3rd was that in the earlier editions, those rules simply ignored, and the underlying rules went unused, which is probably a large reason they were eventually dropped. Most other systems have their own limitations that would largely prevent most of your examples from being entirely rules legal.

I don't have a problem with those kinds of stories, but claiming that PF is somehow worse at them than other systems is problematic to me, as they require a certain amount of bending the rules, regardless of the base system. The PF player community may be less willing to flex that far, and that is a genuine hurdle, but that's still not the system itself. It's still the people you are playing with, which is always going to be the biggest hurdle you have, with the base system having remarkably little impact in the end.

1 to 50 of 3,534 << 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.