4.0: PAIZO IS STILL UNDECIDED


4th Edition

1,251 to 1,300 of 1,665 << first < prev | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | next > last >>

Campbell wrote:

I can see evidence that 4e will be harder to adapt to PC games than 3e.

[list]
  • Per encounter abilities and encounter long durations are inheritly not computer friendly since judging when an encounter starts and when it ends cannot easily be determined by a computer. This is one of the areas where 4e is moving to more application of DM judgement.
  • Actually it's pretty trivial with a half-way decent engine such as the one which runs Neverwinter Nights. It's all faction and script based and it's not hard to measure these things.


    Well now, 1249 posts, and I finally made it through all of them!

    Let me first answer the main question at hand: I'm a 3.0/3.5 player, and I'm staying that way. I'd like Paizo to stick with the 3.5 ruleset, rather than go 4E. If the Pathfinder stuff goes 4E, I'll finish buying the stuff that's 3.5, but that'll be it.

    As far as publishing an "alternate" ruleset goes, I'd love to see it, provided it stays as close to 3.5 as possible. This does seem to be the idea that the Paizo folks have, from their comments.

    To the folks who say "well, the SRD is there, and can't be revoked, so why bother putting out a ruleset?", one must remember that the SRD doesn't contain character creation or character advancement rules.

    Ongoing publication and sale of such is required, if we have any hope of keeping 3.5 alive. Further, altering/modifying the rules significantly defeats the purpose of publishing such a ruleset - if the goal was a new game, we'd buy 4E, right? The goal here is to keep a ruleset in print that is as fully compatible with published 3.5 material as possible.

    It's my plan to buy a couple extra 3.5 PHBs in the next month or two, to keep on the shelf for new players that we introduce to the game, but I'd much rather put that money towards a Paizo version of the same.

    On that note, what about the possibility of a "team-up" with other OGL publishers? Perhaps a "co-written" d20-ish PHB that any or all of you can print/re-print as needed? I can't imagine that the development costs of such a book would be that high, as the majority of the information is in the SRD, and as such, most would be copied verbatim.

    Now, on to my obligatory opining of why I won't be going 4E:

    As of a count a couple days ago, there are 62 WotC 3E/3.5 books on my shelf (not counting a couple extra copies of 3E and 3.5 PHBs). There's a pretty sizable number of 3rd-Party 3E/3.5 OGL books on the shelf, as well.

    I don't know anything about 4E, save what's been published, but it's pretty insulting to be told that I'm essentially an idiot for deciding not to "upgrade" to 4E before I know everything about it. I don't need to know a thing about the game to know that I have zero interest in dumping over $100 on another set of core books, and, over the next few years, dumping much more than that on a repackaged version of the material that I already have. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to deduce that it's simply a matter of time before there will be a 4E version of the various "Races of <Fill In Blank>", "Complete <Fill In Blank>" or "<Fill In Blank> Campaign Setting".

    I've got a lot of that now, and instead of buying it all over again, I can turn my wallet towards buying the stuff that I don't have, for the version of the game that I already own.

    Further, I'll freely admit that I'm still a little bent over the shafting we got with 3.5 - a new set of core books of errata pushed on us a little more than three years after the initial release. 3E was supposed to fix all the problems in 2E. 3.5 was supposed to polish 3E, and fix the few problems that it had. The reason for 4E is that 3E/3.5 was inherently flawed, as it relied too much on 2E and previous versions, and that it's unfixable (but that sure didn't stop them from selling us 3.5, or all the various sourcebooks/splatbooks/updates, right up until the last minute, did it?).

    Screw that. To my mind, Sean K Reynolds explained it best in his "Donut Cores and Forgotten Rums" essay. As much as WotC wants you to believe they're being altruistic about 4E, it's 100% about the money.

    If I wanted to click my mouse, watch flashy-shiny on my computer screen, and play mindless, plotless hacky-slashy, I'd go play a market-leading MMORPG.

    If I wanted to play miniatures, I'd go play a market-leading miniatures game.

    WotC/Hasbro doesn't have either of those, and as much as they're trying, they can't turn D&D into one.

    Dark Archive

    Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

    Well put. I guess there's lots of us stockpiling to last this one out. Great input re. keeping the 3.5 rules available.

    In a similar vein, I've got almost every FR supplement to date. That'll keep me going in FR and I'll use PAizo things as long as I can but I'm pretty much decided now that I won't even look at the 4th Ed. stuff. Why should I? I've got piles of 3rd Ed. stuff I've not read yet. Seems a shame though that they've even convinced me to drop out of FR product buying, they had a hardened fan there which they've lost. Doesn't say much for their marketing.


    I can't wait for the deals on Ebay!!!


    With the annoucement of 4e I stopped playing D&D. I still buy Pathfinder because like the other ones it is the story that matters to me, that is why I use. That being said, I was pretty zoned on 3.5 as well, but I will support Paizo if they come out with another ruleset.

    I currently using Mutants and Masterminds as my end all be all of gaming stuff while running Savage Tides in a Science Fiction setting of my own making using the ruleset from before.

    I don't really know what I was saying... oh yeah. I support Paizo for the stories within the Pathfinder Chronicles. I would support Paizo if they did their own ruleset, though I dunno how much my support would continue after the initial release if it was just 3.5/3.75.


    Brian E. Harris wrote:
    To my mind, Sean K Reynolds explained it best in his "Donut Cores and Forgotten Rums" essay.

    For those who prefer instant gratification over the satisfaction of finding things themselves....

    http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/forgottenrumsstory.html

    : )


    Well, looks like now we know when WotC will let third parties get their hands on the rules - though "give" would be the wrong word to describe the transfer.

    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a

    What does this mean for Paizo? Do we know yet?

    Dark Archive

    Brom Blackforge wrote:

    Well, looks like now we know when WotC will let third parties get their hands on the rules - though "give" would be the wrong word to describe the transfer.

    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a

    What does this mean for Paizo? Do we know yet?

    Erik has asked to be patient for some more time.

    More Here


    Brom Blackforge wrote:

    Well, looks like now we know when WotC will let third parties get their hands on the rules - though "give" would be the wrong word to describe the transfer.

    http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a

    What does this mean for Paizo? Do we know yet?

    No we dont. I dont think they have the rules yet..And even if they did they need to read them and digest it all before a decision is to be made.

    Paying five-grand just to get the rules 5 months early shows that Paizo is very serious about getting 4th edition product out ASAP.
    This...Saddens me

    Im personally very worried about a conversion. I really am still praying for a 3.5th edition campaign setting harcover book and a 3rd adventure path before it all falls apart.


    Brom Blackforge wrote:
    What does this mean for Paizo? Do we know yet?

    Quote from Erik Mona here.

    Erik Mona wrote:

    We are very pleased that Wizards of the Coast is extending the Open Gaming movement into a new edition of the game. We have already signaled our interest in moving forward with Phase 1, which involves getting a look at the OGL. Assuming that the new form of the agreement is acceptable, we will definitely look at the new game to see if it makes sense for Paizo to publish products that support it.

    We have not yet made a decision regarding fourth edition and won't until all the cards are on the table. The difference going forward is that the card game has now started, and the dealer is getting ready to begin play.

    From what I gather, here is the rough outline of what will happen:

    1) Paizo has asked for the NDA, and WotC is likely working to get them a copy.

    2) Paizo will read the NDA and make sure it won't cripple them in any way (it shouldn't), sign it, and send it back to WotC.

    3) When WotC receives the signed NDA, they will send Paizo the OGL.

    4) Paizo will read the OGL to make sure it won't cripple them in any way (it might).

    5) If the OGL looks good to Paizo, they will then work out the details for paying WotC their fee to get in on phase 1.

    6) Once WotC gets their fee, they will send out the rules.

    7) Paizo will then get to read the rules to make sure it won't cripple them in any way (it shouldn't).

    8) Paizo will then decide what all will happen.

    9) Paizo will then let us know.

    I would imagine two to three weeks before we hear anything - unless Paizo puts on the breaks early for any reason.


    Disenchanter wrote:

    3) When WotC receives the signed NDA, they will send Paizo the OGL.

    4) Paizo will read the OGL to make sure it won't cripple them in any way (it might).

    5) If the OGL looks good to Paizo, they will then work out the details for paying WotC their fee to get in on phase 1.

    6) Once WotC gets their fee, they will send out the rules.

    7) Paizo will then get to read the rules to make sure it won't cripple them in any way (it shouldn't).

    Don't they get to see the rules before they pay five grand?


    tbug wrote:
    Don't they get to see the rules before they pay five grand?

    Nope...Thats what the 5-grand is for...The right to see it early.


    Jason Grubiak wrote:
    Nope...Thats what the 5-grand is for...The right to see it early.

    Oh. So what's the NDA for then? Just the actual terms of the license?

    Liberty's Edge

    Jason Grubiak wrote:
    tbug wrote:
    Don't they get to see the rules before they pay five grand?
    Nope...Thats what the 5-grand is for...The right to see it early.

    Well, technically, the $5,000 is the right to *use* the rules early.

    The article on ENworld states you get to see the OGL early but says nothing about the rules or SRD. So, either 1) you have to pay before you get the rules and the article is accurate or 2) due to the fact the article is more paraphrasing than word for word conversation the term OGL includes the SRD and rules document in this case.

    Not saying you are wrong just saying I don't think it was completely clear on what is happening. I would presume they don't get to see the rules.

    It would be interesting to have that clarified. Mostly just to satisfy my intellectual curiosity.

    Liberty's Edge

    tbug wrote:
    Jason Grubiak wrote:
    Nope...Thats what the 5-grand is for...The right to see it early.
    Oh. So what's the NDA for then? Just the actual terms of the license?

    That's very possible.


    Thanks for the clarifications.

    Jon Brazer Enterprises

    I may be wrong on some of the finer details, but here's what I've gathered.

    The NDA will cover both the OGL and the rules. Paizo is allowed to say whether they are going to use the rules and (if applicible) announce products, but they cannot publickly discuss the contents of either the OGL or the rules until they both become public info (June)

    Jon Brazer Enterprises

    alleynbard wrote:
    So, either 1) you have to pay before you get the rules and the article is accurate

    Other 3rd party publishers that were in on the call confirmed this.

    The Exchange

    Adventure Path Charter Subscriber
    Jason Grubiak wrote:
    Im personally very worried about a conversion. I really am still praying for a 3.5th edition campaign setting harcover book and a 3rd adventure path before it all falls apart.

    For the record, I feel the opposite way. I would like to see a pure-flavor campaign setting book, and for Second Darkness to be 4th Edition. I'm not sure that there's enough time left to make that window, but it's what I'm hoping for.

    I don't enjoy running standalone modules, and I don't have the time to write my own homebrew campaign, so I rely on adventure paths for material to play. Age of Worms got me back into DMing after several years away. I'm excited to play 4E, but I probably won't get the chance until/unless Paizo starts up a 4E AP.

    That said, guys, do what you need to do. I can promise you my subscription dollars at least through the end of Second Darkness regardless of your decision on the system switch.

    Jon Brazer Enterprises

    A few months ago, I remember Mona (or someone from Paizo) saying a few months ago that them going 4E depends more on the OGL then it does the rules. After seeing what I saw yesterday, I finally understand what they meant. If there are no gnomes in the PHB, can or can't they add them back in? Are they allowed to come up with their own setting? Can they use 3rd ed OGL material in 4E products? etc. Questions like this I couldn't fathom only Monday.

    Liberty's Edge

    DMcCoy1693 wrote:
    alleynbard wrote:
    So, either 1) you have to pay before you get the rules and the article is accurate
    Other 3rd party publishers that were in on the call confirmed this.

    Cool, its what I assumed but I realized that I was not completely sure that this was the case.

    Dark Archive

    Looks like Goodman Games is on board:

    http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3153

    Will this impact Paizo and Necromancer Games decision?


    joela wrote:

    Looks like Goodman Games is on board:

    http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3153

    Will this impact Paizo and Necromancer Games decision?

    It shouldnt. First of all Goodman dried up and stopped making 3.5 Dungeon Crawl classics when the announcement happened at Gencon. So even though they made this announcement today its hardly news. Paizo and Necro already knew Goodman's decision.

    Necromancer Games?....Maybe. I mean they already want to do a 4th Edition Tome of Horrors and have adventure ideas. I dont think Goodman is effecting their decision..but they are both "1st Edition Feel" adventure producers.

    Paizo on the other hand makes product thats pretty darn different form what Goodman makes. I dont see that effecting their decision.


    Of additional relevance to the Paizo & 4.0 debate may be that in the chatroom last night James Jacobs seemed to me to be saying that Paizo wouldn't want to publish anything that wasn't D & D; if I understood him correctly, it appears to me to conclusively rule out any possible intentions upon Paizo's part of their developing their own game system in the immediate future.

    EDIT:
    Earlier post deleted upon checking information on websites of ENWorld and Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro. The Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro information on the 'OGL Designer's Kit' (market price $5000) can be found in the D&D News Archives section of Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro site. (Article '4E SRD AND OGL' dated 8th January, 2008.)


    Charles Evans 25 wrote:
    Of additional relevance to the Paizo & 4.0 debate may be that in the chatroom last night James Jacobs seemed to me to be saying that Paizo wouldn't want to publish anything that wasn't D & D; if I understood him correctly, it appears to me to conclusively rule out any possible intentions upon Paizo's part of their developing their own game system in the immediate future.

    I wouldn't necessarily say that. 3.5 D&D is still D&D. They're just not going to switch systems entirely.


    Brom Blackforge wrote:
    Charles Evans 25 wrote:
    Of additional relevance to the Paizo & 4.0 debate may be that in the chatroom last night James Jacobs seemed to me to be saying that Paizo wouldn't want to publish anything that wasn't D & D; if I understood him correctly, it appears to me to conclusively rule out any possible intentions upon Paizo's part of their developing their own game system in the immediate future.
    I wouldn't necessarily say that. 3.5 D&D is still D&D. They're just not going to switch systems entirely.

    I used the word 'developing', trying to convey my impression that I didn't think that the possibility of Paizo creating their own system from scratch, or even heavily modify 3.5 to produce a 'three point Paizo', was on the table any more (it it ever truly was). I think that Paizo will either stay wth 3.5 (eventually switching over to 4th edition, unless the feedback which they receive from their customers gives them a genuinely *strong* reason not to do so) or switch to 4th edition as soon as possible if they think that the latter is the correct business decision to make for them. (Though I suspect that Paizo's customer base may be sufficiently different from Wizard of the Coast/Hasbro's target market for whom 4th Edition is specifically designed, to make an immediate change to 4th edition less desirable for Paizo than other companies seem to be finding it.)

    Right now, I don't think that Paizo are seriously considering any other options, unless they're planning to keep running Pathfinder/Golarion/any other associated lines as 3.5 for the time being and maybe dip a toe in the waters of the 4th edition market with some generic setting stand-alone modules.

    Liberty's Edge

    No change yet? Paizo hasn't gotten the new rules and isn't so busy they forgot to tell anyone?

    Wasn't January 15th the final deadline for Pathfinder #3 to go 4th edition?


    At least if Paizo doesn't switch, I'll have something to do. I heard about the hundred year time jump and the Mad Max Beyond the Forgotten Realms stuff from Wizards today, so if Paizo stays 3.5, and/or backdates the old stuff to 4th, that's likely where I'm headed.

    I'm not happy with the whole business. I've loved the Forgotten Realms for a very long time, and there's a whole lot of bad sportsmanship going on over at Wizards, it seems, where people need to leave their mark on things by taunting the fanbase.

    Liberty's Edge

    I could so see that. The D&D R&D team gets together, and sort of like the Frenchmen from Holy Grail one is like 'I told them we've gotten rid of the erinyes and the succubus is now a devil because it looks like a person'. They all laugh. 'Oh, that's a good one. OH OH OH! I got one. I'm going to make Tieflings a core race and we won't actually fit them into any of our settings.'

    They go on like that trying to one-up each other for the most 'disturbing change' to the game.


    Go away, you dirty little classic Forgotten Realms fans! Bugger off, you stinking unwashed bog monster buggerers! Try to conflict with our genius, will you?

    I love that with every step they take, they choose the most cosmically retarded explanations possible. What was wrong with the simple one? Did they think people might complain MORE?

    Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

    DeadDMWalking wrote:

    No change yet? Paizo hasn't gotten the new rules and isn't so busy they forgot to tell anyone?

    Wasn't January 15th the final deadline for Pathfinder #3 to go 4th edition?

    We haven't gotten the OGL yet, much less the rules, but things are moving along in that direction.

    As for the 1/15 deadline, we've worked out a way to delay the decision a little longer (but not much longer).

    Liberty's Edge

    Don't delay on my account.

    (Polite Imperative)

    Paizo Employee Chief Technical Officer

    Jason Grubiak wrote:

    Paying five-grand just to get the rules 5 months early shows that Paizo is very serious about getting 4th edition product out ASAP.

    This...Saddens me

    What it shows is that we're very serious about understanding the short-term and long-term effects that a new edition has on our business. Evaluating and reacting to this information quickly is essential to our survival, no matter what we end up doing or when we end up doing it.

    I'd also note that we have a publishing partnership with Necromancer Games, and they have already announced that they're planning products to support 4E, so we have to pony up the $5K to be able to publish those products this fall regardless of what we do with respect to our non-Necromancer products.

    Jon Brazer Enterprises

    Vic Wertz wrote:
    I'd also note that we have a publishing partnership with Necromancer Games, and they have already announced that they're planning products to support 4E, so we have to pony up the $5K to be able to publish those products this fall regardless of what we do with respect to our non-Necromancer products.

    Provided that the nOGL allows for alternate/additional classes and monsters that WotC will publish in the future.


    Getting back to Mona's original post, specifically the query, "What do you want us to do," here's my 2cp:

    I have to agree that from a business standpoint WotC's actions are completely necessary if not completely brilliant. I hate to admit that, but that's just the way it is. If their strategy works (and I suspect it might) they're destined to take D&D into a whole new era of success.

    HOWEVER! I won't be going with them. There was a time when I would have followed the D&D name no matter where it led, and I would have done so gladly. That time is long over. I'm older now, and I have a better grasp on what I like - the "new D&D" isn't it. I haven't seen much more than anyone else, but what I have seen is enough to let me know that WotC's new products "just ain't D&D." That said, obviously I'll be sticking with 3.5e. I'd probably support a "3.Paizo", but only under certain conditions. More on that later.

    Concerning Paizo's choice - I really feel for you folks. I've faced similar choices in my own business life and I know this isn't an easy time for you. My feeling is that Paizo produces a superior product and has a superior talent pool from which to draw. I also feel that Paizo has a great affinity for roleplaying and especially for the roleplaying community. That in itself is worth a lot to me. I'd surely hate to see Paizo go under, especially for such a pointless reason as the release of 4e.

    More to the point, I would gladly patronize Paizo: 1) if the current quality of their products is maintained at the same high level, 2) if their rules set of choice is compatible with (or at least easily convertible to) 3e/3.5e D&D, 3) if Paizo will publish at least some products that are more socially responsible and not so morally objectionable as the Pathfinder and Gamemastery lines have been thus far, and 4) if Paizo can manage to eventually broaden their product line to include a greater variety of products for roleplaying. In other words, adventures are nice but eventually we're going to need some new crunch to play with beyond the few tidbits that appear in Pathfinder.

    I became a big fan of Paizo when the company took over publication of Dungeon and Dragon magazines. I was familiar with the names of some of the principles even back then, and knew that Paizo would be a quality company that truly cared for the gaming community. It saddened me greatly when the magazine licenses were yanked, and moreover I took it as a personal (but, I must admit, not wholly unexpected) blow when the content of Pathfinder and the Gamemastery line (some of it, at least) drifted into areas that I find objectionable. Nonetheless, I'd much rather support a company that is motivated by love for their work than one that is motivated primarily by...whatever's motivating WotC these days.

    I'm hoping you stick with 3.5e, Paizo. I'm also hoping you take advantage of the situation and take over the industry. You've got the talent and the ability to do it, in my estimation. Above all, I'm hoping you manage to succeed as a company in spite of the obstacles WotC has thrown in your path. It saddens me that item cards are the only thing you produce that I can bring myself to buy these days. Nonetheless, I'll gladly return when you decide you want me - and other gamers like me - back. Good gaming companies are hard to come by.

    Edit: Of course, there is another option. Paizo could support both 4e and 3.5e, perhaps even OSRIC. Yes, I know that's a tall order, but I'm betting that a company with the street cred of Paizo - especially when partnered with Necromancer - could corner the market on every edition. Think about it, Erik...

    Dark Archive

    Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
    bubbagump wrote:
    3) if Paizo will publish at least some products that are more socially responsible and not so morally objectionable as the Pathfinder and Gamemastery lines have been thus far,

    Huh? Did I miss a few?


    bubbagump wrote:
    3) if Paizo will publish at least some products that are more socially responsible and not so morally objectionable as the Pathfinder and Gamemastery lines have been thus far,
    Lewy wrote:
    Huh? Did I miss a few?

    While I don't share bubbagump's feeling, I think it's fair that Pathfinder has some PG-13 (or even R) content. It's about evil, gruesome deeds. For me and my group, it's great -- and I applaud Paizo, big-time. But I do see where some may be less comfortable with it, and I wouldn't DM it for young kids.

    As far as I'm concerned, though, rock on Paizo!

    To each their own.

    Liberty's Edge

    bubbagump wrote:
    3) if Paizo will publish at least some products that are more socially responsible and not so morally objectionable as the Pathfinder and Gamemastery lines have been thus far...

    Different strokes. My players and I are salivating over adventures finally being written hard and gritty. I find their themes and stories strong and alive, dangerous and gross, and we love it all.

    -DM Jeff


    bubbagump wrote:
    3) if Paizo will publish at least some products that are more socially responsible and not so morally objectionable as the Pathfinder and Gamemastery lines have been thus far...

    FWIW, Jason Buhlman has indicated that he'd like to do some more kid/younger audience friendly modules for GameMastery (in the Pathfinder chats).

    Dark Archive

    First let me preface this by saying my group like many others won't be going to 4E, ever. The design and concepts are deeply flawed.

    Paizo really should develop an in house "3.75". How long do you want to dance to Wotc's tune? C'mon step up, time to become the Apple Inc. of the gaming industry.

    If an alternative to 4E isn't presented then disaffected gamers will probably just switch to another system or genre. I know I will. I have enough 3.5 material to ignore 4E completely and wait for sanity to return.

    Jon Brazer Enterprises

    Alex Draconis wrote:

    If an alternative to 4E isn't presented then disaffected gamers will probably just switch to another system or genre. I know I will. I have enough 3.5 material to ignore 4E completely and wait for sanity to return.

    Green ronin has True20 and they announced today that it will soon be available via a FREE licence. Pathfinder is already being converted to True20. True20 is a rules "lighter" version of d20. Just a thought.


    Lilith wrote:
    bubbagump wrote:
    3) if Paizo will publish at least some products that are more socially responsible and not so morally objectionable as the Pathfinder and Gamemastery lines have been thus far...
    FWIW, Jason Buhlman has indicated that he'd like to do some more kid/younger audience friendly modules for GameMastery (in the Pathfinder chats).

    No offense to Lilith or anyone else, but I do find it highly objectionable that "less offensive" equates to "for kids" in so many folks' minds. This world is full of real violence and horror, of a kind that would make most people sick. As a former police chaplain I've seen my share of it. I don't see how anyone could consider such things entertaining, even in an abstract, game-related way. Perhaps some on these boards should consider how they became so jaded, and how they might remedy the situation.

    Frankly, I find it rather disturbing that there are so many who seem to revel in playing with such a high degree of evil. I'm concerned about the morality and mental health of anyone who isn't completely repulsed by some of the things I've read in recent Paizo publications. And no, I'm not saying this as a former minister, nor am I trying to push my religion on anyone (you'll note I haven't even mentioned it in any specific terms). You don't have to be a religious person to find graphic violence and some of the other situations described in Paizo products objectionable.

    If you want to talk about things being "for kids," then I think we have a basis for discussion on this issue: emotionally and spiritually mature people don't usually find such things entertaining. Thus I turn the question around on you: who's really being more childish?

    In closing, I must apologize for the anger in this post. It's just that I'm getting pretty tired of being insulted (if only passively, in most cases) because I prefer to spend my recreational time NOT dealing with evil on such a grand scale. I'm sure I'm going to gets tons of replies here and elsewhere telling me what a whiner I am and how I shouldn't be bothered by other folks' tastes in adventures. FWIW, I'm completely happy to let everyone play the kind of game they want to play and buy the kind of products they want to buy. But I remind you I was replying to a request by Erik Mona to tell him what I wanted. I simply did so.

    I also expect to get several replies telling me I'm a complete wuss and should just shut up and go away - at least, that's what's happened every other time I've mentioned being offended by Paizo's content. So that's what I'm going to do. I refuse to get into any online arguments over such silliness. I provided Paizo with feedback just as they requested. I even chose the words so many of you find objectionable specifically because they accurately convey the emotional content of the idea I was trying to get across. My intention was not to insult Erik or anyone else, but merely to get my point across for the good of a company I truly care about. I accomplished what I set out for, so I'm moving on. Think of me what you will.


    bubbagump wrote:
    No offense... but I do find it highly objectionable that "less offensive" equates to "for kids" in so many folks' minds...

    Sorry for any offense given. While none was intended, I especially see your point regarding the "for kids" issue. Furthermore, while I don't share your distaste for some of the material discussed, I think I understand why you feel as you do.

    Again, sorry :/

    Regards.


    I'll tell you about a relatively short, but great campaign that didn't involve evil at all. 2 different views, to be sure, but not evil. I had a group of pretty "civilization based" adventurers - a paladin, bard, abjurer, priest, and a rogue whose main antagonists (once they figured it out) were the druids and their kin in the wild that were trying to drive off one of the newer settlements. Very few of the sessions had major combat - in most cases there was a lot of non-fatal combat (as the animals and/or fey had many opportunities to flee.) There were a couple sessions where there were some Stone Giants involved that ended bloody - as were some other battles with mindless undead and a couple other radical druid types - not that were evil, just zealous and extreme in their belief. The game imploded when 2 of the 5 players who were dating stopped dating and one decided to date party member #3. By the time peoples libidos and egos got back in check, the game was lost...

    Now that I have a few other supplements, I'd love to try it again...

    Some day

    The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

    bubbagump wrote:


    No offense to Lilith or anyone else, but I do find it highly objectionable that "less offensive" equates to "for kids" in so many folks' minds. This world is full of real violence and horror, of a kind that would make most people sick. As a former police chaplain I've seen my share of it. I don't see how anyone could consider such things entertaining, even in an abstract, game-related way. Perhaps some on these boards should consider how they became so jaded, and how they might remedy the situation.

    You've made some interesting points and made them well. I will remember to check my own insinuations in the future in this area ... I think I have said things along the lines "I wouldn't give that module to my son, but I appreciate that adults need play time as well" suggesting that some things were not suitable for children but might be acceptable for adults.

    And that, I think, is where my views differ from yours. I don't think that playing a game in which you confront and fight against evil is emotionally immature. Nor do I think that finding such games entertaining indicates a 'jadedness'. When I read, watch, or play games that scare me silly, I think I go away with a stronger desire to value what I have and treasure the good out there and in here <-- thumps self on chest over heart.

    Thanks for your interesting post.


    bubbagump wrote:
    *some really good stuff *

    Huh? I didn't mean to imply anything by my post. I merely wanted to share the information that Paizo is aware that not all of their customers want the grittier adventures and want something a little lighter in tone. No insult intended, and in the Pathfinder chat with Jason, he has no intention of reducing the quality of the adventures, nor "dumbing it down."


    Lilith wrote:
    bubbagump wrote:
    *some really good stuff *
    Huh? I didn't mean to imply anything by my post. I merely wanted to share the information that Paizo is aware that not all of their customers want the grittier adventures and want something a little lighter in tone. No insult intended, and in the Pathfinder chat with Jason, he has no intention of reducing the quality of the adventures, nor "dumbing it down."

    Oh, I wasn't trying to snap at you, Lilith. Yours just happened to be the latest post in a looooong series of posts (most of them in other threads and spaced out over the last several months) using language that seemed to suggest non-offensive adventures are for children only. I have no beef with you specifically, and must admit I'm probably getting a little oversensitive about the whole subject.

    You'd be surprised at some of the emails I've gotten since I first posted on these boards that I was unhappy with some of Paizo's recent offerings. I've also been accosted rather aggressively (some might say "attacked") in other threads, on other message boards, and even in certain chat rooms. I guess I should learn to use a different nick when I go elsewhere.

    Let me just take this opportunity to once again confirm that I have nothing but the greatest fondness for Paizo. The whole reason I started subscribing to Dragon and Dungeon magazines after so many years without them was because I found out Erik Mona was in charge. I have tremendous respect for many of Paizo's designers and officers, and more than a little gratitude for the efforts some of them have put forth to make sure D&D is a hobby worth keeping. I also have a deep fondness for the Paizo community, which is why I keep coming back to these boards. And I have a degree of fondness for you, Lilith, since your presence has had nothing but a beneficial effect on the Paizo forums. I assure you that my comments and criticisms are motivated only by a desire to see Paizo succeed, and are not intended to harm or insult Paizo, Paizo's employees, Paizo's customers, or anyone else.


    bubbagump wrote:
    I have no beef with you specifically, and must admit I'm probably getting a little oversensitive about the whole subject.

    Oh good (about the no beef).

    bubbagump wrote:
    You'd be surprised at some of the emails I've gotten since I first posted on these boards that I was unhappy with some of Paizo's recent offerings. I've also been accosted rather aggressively (some might say "attacked") in other threads, on other message boards, and even in certain chat rooms. I guess I should learn to use a different nick when I go elsewhere.

    That's...sad and little pathetic that people can't accept that you may have a different opinion than theirs. :( And if any of this accosting is happening in my chatroom...I will be most displeased.

    bubbagump wrote:
    And I have a degree of fondness for you, Lilith, since your presence has had nothing but a beneficial effect on the Paizo forums.

    Aww! That's sweet of you to say that. :) *blushes*


    bubbagump, I dug up a couple of direct quotes for you:
    From December 4th:

    Pathfinder Chat wrote:


    "Lighter" Adventures
    Joseph: "James, is there anything planned in the future for a lighter adventure/series of adventures? I'm not very familiar with most Gamemastery modules, but Pathfinder, while excellent, may be a bit too dark for my current group's tastes."
    JJ: "Yes. There will be lighter adventures."

    and from January 1st:

    Pathfinder Chat wrote:


    For Younger Players
    Takasi: "I was wondering for GameMastery would you guys consider a 'young readers' type module for beginner players? My son is 12 and I recommended he run TC1 or D0 with his friends. I think that would be an excellent item to fill a niche when 4E is released, the 'get your kid to play D&D' product."
    JB: "Yeah.. I am trying to move us in a direction that is a bit more 'young player' friendly..."
    Wyvern: "Young player friendly? Hmm... Just don't make it for the stupid."
    JB: "Never.. I understand the difference between 'young friendly' and 'dumbed down.'"

    :D

    1,251 to 1,300 of 1,665 << first < prev | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / 4.0: PAIZO IS STILL UNDECIDED All Messageboards