Detrimus's page

29 posts. No reviews. No lists. No wishlists.


5 people marked this as a favorite.

The new graphic design is objectively and subjectively awful. The odd curly elements around the Riding Allosaurus is something I'd see on a wedding invitation. It's busy, covers the artwork, and is just plain unnecessary. This also goes for the background graphic. While the previous approach to graphic design in PACG 1.0 was blasé, this looks far worse.

Everything else about the game's design excites me, and I see a lot of hard work went into streamlining concepts and layout.

The more I think about it, the more I'm turned off from playing the game at this point. Taking a brash approach to a customer concern and very rudely rubbing their noses in it with your unprofessional response and thinking that's an okay way to deal with things is garbage.

The topic was brought up multiple times on the forum here and the only responses you ever gave were curt. Then you have the audacity to claim that you are open for discussion when, in fact, there had been an attempt at discussion all along. It's no coincidence that this thread was started following the petition thread.

Well, as originator of the infamous petition thread, I'm glad we're finally able to discuss this to a reasonable extent.

Before I give my vote on a $2 vs. $8 pack, I'd like to know the full extent of cards that would be included in the $8 pack. For instance, would blessing of the gods contain a rewording that would prevent confusion regarding its inability to copy the recharge effect?

Right now I'm leaning towards the $2.00 PoD option.

The size difference is a slight concern.

Also, what would be the policy to cards that are discovered with typos/omissions in the upcoming adventure packs? Would they get cards integrated into those PoD packs, or how exactly would that work?

Lethuin wrote:
Vic Wertz wrote:

I'm happy to engage in a *discussion* when I have time, but starting a "petition" to try to make us do something is not a good tactic—it just makes me feel like I'm being strongarmed, and frankly, pisses me off. I consider it thoroughly offensive and insulting.

I appreciate that most of the posts in this thread are from people engaging in a reasonable discussion of the issue. I'll respond more fully when I have time (which is unlikely to be today).

Wow. I was excited for this game. Then less excited as I read about the issues with the printing (I'm an editor, so those issues really bug me; even more when they affect gameplay). Now, this post has soured me on Paizo. Customer service is as important to me as the game itself (since I have so many great ones I haven't tried yet).

Consider me off the PACG wagon. Maybe, MAYBE I can get back on if Paizo shows a better attitude towards their customers.

Vic, if this is how you react on the boards, it's probably time to hire someone with some PR experience to deal with the community.

Admittedly I was quite tempted to feed into my emotional response to his reply and also cancel my subscription, but I've been able to remain level-headed prior to that and I'm still in hopes there's going to be a 180 on how customer service is handled.

I don't know if there's anyone who's been following the upcoming releases of the Xbox One and PS4, but one of the Microsoft Employees who made a mocking tweet of people who were annoyed with their "Always Online" policy got let go. Clearly not a PR person, that guy was.

ChrisRevocateur wrote:
gbonehead wrote:
Like then the people in my town put together a petition to try to force the town council to stop Dollar Tree from opening a warehouse, for example.

And what "force" did they threaten to use if their petition was not fulfilled?

That petition you're talking about probably didn't 'force' anything. It was probably nothing more than a list of citizens that didn't want that Dollar Tree Warehouse in their community. The Town Council had every right to make whatever decision they wanted to in that case. They might have had a whole town of unhappy people that wouldn't re-elect them next term, but I doubt there was any specific 'force' behind that petition.

What I'm trying to get at here is the cultural concept that a petition forces anything is just plain wrong, unless that petition specifically states or insinuates what force would be brought to bare if the petition is unfulfilled. But even then, with the statement of force, it's no longer a request, and thus, no longer a petition, but a communal demand. No matter the context, if you get "strongarmed" or "forced" from the word petition, then you seriously need to 1.) re-evaluate your understanding of the English language and 2.) understand how force works, both on a social and physics level. When you even look for synonyms for petition, demand isn't even among them, the strongest word I could find was 'urge,' which is only to strongly request.

The thread was not named "Demand for corrected cards," or anything, and there was no threatened action if corrected cards weren't provided (though one customer did cancel his subscription, it was AFTER Vic attacked the thread, and was due to that, not the lack of corrected cards). Thus Vic's reaction is WAY off base. Does it piss him off when his wife (or whom/what ever he lives with, if anyone/thing) asks (i.e. 'petitions') him to mow the lawn or fix a lightbulb? Does he tell Lisa Stevens that she's pissed him off because she asked (again, 'petitioned') him to take care of...

In addition to the comical value of your reply, I appreciate your logical way of addressing the issue(s) at hand. Thank you.

To isolate the title of this thread, without taking into consideration any of its content, and then use that as an excuse to get "pissed off" at the customer(s) because of a connotation of that word, travels past reasonable behavior.

I will add that because of Vic's response, my expectations of this being handled in a forthright and respectful way are diminished.

Matt Thomason wrote:
Detrimus wrote:

A petition isn't strong-arming anything. I'd like to draw your attention to the Merriam-Webster definition of a petition: "a request made for something desired," which is the exact extent here. If you had read the petition in full and not found an imaginary reason to get yourself pissed off, you would have realized that there's nothing uncivil about it. There's nothing offensive whatsoever.

Heh, gotta love our language really.

"I'm going to petition the king to send more troops."

"I'm putting together a petition to the king with 10,000 signatures to let him know he better send more troops or he can expect mobs with flaming torches."

Alas, the Internet doesn't make communication any easier sometimes :(

Except nothing has been demanded with an ultimatum, only requested (i.e. asked). There's nothing used in my rhetoric that should cause anyone to fly off the handle.

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vic Wertz wrote:

I'm happy to engage in a *discussion* when I have time, but starting a "petition" to try to make us do something is not a good tactic—it just makes me feel like I'm being strongarmed, and frankly, pisses me off. I consider it thoroughly offensive and insulting.

I appreciate that most of the posts in this thread are from people engaging in a reasonable discussion of the issue. I'll respond more fully when I have time (which is unlikely to be today).

The entire purpose of this thread was to get you to reconsider the stance of not providing reprints. The basic response from you thus far has been: "No, it's not feasible." When an attempt at a discussion was started, you haven't provided us with an ongoing dialogue, but taken a dismissive stance. As customers of the product a more detailed response would be nice.

A petition isn't strong-arming anything. I'd like to draw your attention to the Merriam-Webster definition of a petition: "a request made for something desired," which is the exact extent here. If you had read the petition in full and not found an imaginary reason to get yourself pissed off, you would have realized that there's nothing uncivil about it. There's nothing offensive whatsoever.

Considering how nondescript you've been about it so far and how respectful the "petition" has been, getting yourself upset and then blaming it on the customer is beyond unprofessional behavior.

Since a discussion has failed in past threads, a petition is exactly the kind of tactic needed. We're simply voicing an opinion, in an official Paizo forum, in a solicitous manner.

GFWD wrote:

I am fine with the cards I have and the game I received for my money (and I paid full retail at my local game shop).

I have found that most of the card fixes don't even require changing the cards, I can just remember the errata and I print out the errata and throw it in the box with my game and check as needed.

Reprinting and sending people cards is not worth the increased cost of future products that would result in my opinion. Put the money towards making more new PACG materials.

"No absurd demands are being made, no ultimatums, no petty threats, just a desire for a set of cards with corrected rules/vocabulary that maintain a common aesthetic across all the cards.

Lastly, there's no harm in taking an active approach in this manner. If Paizo replaces those cards and makes them available to the customers wouldn't you prefer that over any home remedies? Would it also not be a positive step forward in customer service, showing that they are a company that cares enough about their product to be held accountable?"

-A quote from a BGG post I made.

Regarding your last statement: That's a bold assumption to make. I don't think there's any reason to believe it would ever come to that.

WesWagner wrote:

I have not seen anything that rises to the level of, ZOMG the cards are so messed up the game is clunky and difficult to play. It may, however, be worthwhile for some people who are completionists or just would like to have card errata printed on real cards to make a small pack that ships with subscriptions and game store pre-orders for the final expansion pack.

I suspect that if another campaign setting is done it will probably ship with a new box, completely new characters, and probably new mechanics.

Not everyone will hang in there all the way to the final chapter of Rise of the Runelords -- which will limit the cost some on how many errata packs might need to be printed, and by shipping them with the final chapter only for game store preorders and subscriptions -- the overall cost to Paizo to accommodate their most loyal series followers would be much lower.

(Not only that we will have all the time needed to find all the errata)

I'd like to point out a few things. It's my understanding that this game was/is being marketed towards an audience seperate from their loyal, RPG book followers. I can at least attest to that fact. I have always loved card games, and hearing about this game's persistent RPG mechanics mixed with cards got me to bite. All that said, you're right, nothing here is catastrophically flawed. No one is calling for a public hanging, either.

The issues aren't just as straightforward as making "the game clunky and difficult to play." I would like to point out, though, that in some instances they do. Keep in mind that this game is probably attracting players who may not have ever played a tabletop RPG before. Certain aspects/clarifications of the game that seem obvious to RPG veterans won't be obvious to others. Having the nifty character sheets Paizo provided free-of-charge as downloads in front of me and the other players as well as the errata sheet, is a bit clunky. It's a decent amount to keep track of, where this could be handled in a much more streamlined way by replacing the cards.

But there's also this long-term effect of making sure every time you play with a group, that everyone is aware of those fixes and that you (i.e. the game owner) is responsibly taking charge and making sure everyone else is paying attention. It would not be far-fetched to think that various cards and their interactions with one another--such as a shield being played after a Bastard Sword +1 was used--could be easily overlooked by a new player who isn't referencing an errata sheet.

Much obliged, Mark.

Kirk Bauer wrote:
micrex wrote:
Reprints needed, that's for sure. There are so many cards needing fixes just in the base set its sorta sad.
IMO there are really only a few cards out of ~600 that have significant enough of errata to warrant a reprint. But I would certainly like new versions of those cards.

Indeed. Some of the cards in the FAQ are just clarifications, some of which weren't even needed as they were just reiterating the implied effect.

Still, though, there are several cards that do need it, as they are affected in significant ways.

Onesiphorus wrote:
QuantumNinja wrote:

I think the car analogy is misplaced. I would put this more in line with typos in a book, or minor bugs in software. When you buy a book and it has a few typos in it (most books do!), do you expect the publisher to provide you a new one? Or software... a lot of software has minor bugs that don't impair functionality. While developers usually try to patch minor bugs like that, there comes a point where it becomes impractical for them to waste resources correcting every last bug. In those cases, I would say that even though there's minor faults with the product, I still received what I paid for.

I think it's a similar situation with PACG. I just don't think Paizo *owes* it to me to replace the handful of misprinted cards. The game "works" out of the box, and as long as the game isn't physically damaged, I have no expectation of them replacing any cards. It would be amazingly awesome if they did print replacement cards, but I do not need them to play the game....

With a book, you can't simply replace one page, you would have to replace the entire book. No one is asking for a brand new copy of the game, just a few pages with typos to be replaced. Book publishers would jump at an opportunity for that kind of quality control.

I don't think the software analogy has a place in this conversation, it is a digital product. Patches and compatibility updates are expected, and for free. EDIT (Yes even boxed software these days comes out of the box requiring a patch before it works "as intended")

If people accept that paying a premium price for a product that doesn't adhere to premium quality (distribution wise, concept and execution is astounding) then other companies will push that boundary until it's consumer base and profits suffers, only then will it rebound to the last acceptable position.

That is exactly the issue. Well said.

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Firstly, I want to thank the PACG team for a great game. The hype surrounding the game prior to release was palpable, and to my surprise and in my opinion, lives up to that hype. However, the launch of the game wasn’t without its editorial mistakes. Over the past few weeks several typos have been discovered in the base game, some minor, some noteworthy. With the cards for the entire Adventure Path already printed, we can safely assume that the base set isn’t the only thing susceptible to misprints but also the expansions.

With several posts by Vic Wertz stating that there are no intentions of providing corrected cards, I was left wondering why. If more misprints are discovered among future releases will there be a threshold where enough is enough? It's not that they exist that bothers me--the board gaming industry is rife with these kinds of things--it's the stance that firmly stated you have no intention of providing corrected versions of these cards.

This is poor customer service. Almost any time I've had component issues with a company, I've been able to reach out to them and get proper replacements (the most recent being Earth Reborn and Elder Sign).

Marking on your own cards IS NOT a proper solution. My poor handwriting would only serve to mar the surface and produce an aesthetic gap between the misprints and the other cards. I'd rather just have the FAQ beside me to reference and hope I don't overlook or forget a detail. Admittedly I'm a bit OCD. I've ALWAYS taken great care of my material possessions, not just because I want to keep them looking nice for as long as possible but also because of potential resale value.

There exists a camp of people who have taken a passive approach to these misprints, but please don’t assume that there’s not an even larger camp that doesn't. I really hope that Paizo might reconsider the prospect of including corrected cards in a future adventure pack or separate shipment from customer service. It shouldn't fall onto the customers, who support the game, to provide their own remedies, whether that's scribbling on the cards, or spending extra money on the game, printing high quality replacements from Kinko's.

I have planned to invest in this game over the next year by subscribing to the game via your website. With my future support in tow, I hope you respond in kind, and provide your own support for the game by fixing what should have been correct the first time around.

This is a $60.00 game, replacing a few cards shouldn’t break the company. It's not like you have to replace plastic miniatures or anything of that nature. Cards are printed out in large sheets and then cut. Yes, it would cost money, and I understand the adage “there’s no such thing as a free lunch,” but it would also make the customers happy. The long-term benefit outweighs the cost. Customer satisfaction is everything. If this is taken care of properly, I'll be a paizo customer for the foreseeable future.

That is strange. I doubt the contents differ.

1) The rule you speak of comes into play when performing checks. Playing two cure cards back-to-back is outside of the encounter phase, so yes you can.

2) Yes it only applies to a blessing played by the player, as indicated by the text under "RECHARGE." Keep in mind that the blessing deck primarily functions as a timer. The only other interaction is the form of blessings played by the player, where a Blessing of the Gods can copy the "POWERS" section of the top card, or a Blessing played that matches the top of the Blessing Deck discard pile can be recharged.

I understand what you're saying, but why, then, does Kyra's power state:

"When you play Blessing of Sarenrae, you may recharge it ( or shuffle it into your deck) instead of discarding it."

...when Seelah's power states:

"When you play Blessing of Iomedae, you may recharge it ( or shuffle it into your deck) instead."

Seelah's power doesn't mention "instead of discarding it," which leads me to believe it's just a typo?

I posted this on BGG, but no one responded and it would be best to get an official answer.

Looking at Seelah's two roles: the Crusader and Hospitaler, they share a power(the last one) that I would like some clarification on.

Either role can choose to recharge (or shuffle back into your deck) a Blessing of Lomedae when you play the card. What I find interesting, is that unlike other character's roles that allow you to recharge a particular blessing instead of discarding it when you play it, Seelah's power doesn't specify "instead of discarding," but just rather when you play the card, which is an interesting caveat. It's obviously not as useful as Kyra's similar power, but it does at least allow for slight deck manipulation.

Still, though, I wonder if that's a slight typo and it was intended for the greater purpose of: "instead of discarding"

Slightly off topic, but related:

Can Ezren use Sage to help him recharge a spell, say Acid Arrow? Acid Arrow requires an Arcane Check 6 to succeed, and Sage adds 1d6 to a noncombat Intelligence (or wisdom) check. Since Arcane is listed as a sub-skill under his Intelligence would this be valid?

A similar example would be: Seelah using a Sage to help her recharge a Cure. Cure requires a Divine check, and divine is listed under Seelah's wisdom.

I feel like I should know this, but I also feel like those particulars probably matter here.


Mechalibur wrote:
Detrimus wrote:
Also take Invisibility or Sleep to overcome barriers like Collapsed Ceiling.
Those two spells explicitly only work on monsters, not barriers.

Well, then, I stand corrected!

I suppose this would be a good time to good time to talk strategy for Ezren.

When soloing he has more flexibility than most people credit him.

First let's look at one of his understated advantages: 6-card hand size.

That's 40% of your deck at the game's start. Keeping that in mind, take a variety of different spells that offer utility other than combat. Cards like the recently revised Detect Magic, to help in the possibility of exploring further. Also take Invisibility or Sleep to overcome barriers like Collapsed Ceiling.

As for items, a healing potion never hurts. Don't be afraid to use it because of its 1-time use; it can save you! Furthermore, the game allows you to reset your deck with cards from the box if you can't legally reconstruct your deck again, i.e. you lack an item from using a potion.

Explore every chance you get, if you're using your powers properly, you can regain another combat spell to overcome any monsters, allowing for efficient exploring!

And that just scratches the surface!

Yea the lack of blessings isn't that big a deal in my experience. The idea is that his ability to explore more then once a turn is hampered, but when soloing I've yet to die from a time-out.

Yes, that's correct. Also, you'd be surprised what kind of damage other characters can do. Keep in mind he can't have any blessings. Still, though, he's definitely a hard hitter.

Thanks for the replies, makes more sense.

Here's a question that I've been held up on.

If I'm only playing with one other person (2 people total), should I add in all the cards from the character add-on pack? I'm feeling I should just add in the unique cards, since adding in all the extras that I already have in the base set, would bloat the boon distribution.

I've already posed this question to BGG, but I figure it won't hurt to post here as well.

The question I have is regarding how the language in the rulebook doesn't explicitly state you can't use both a quarterstaff and force missile, among other combinations, during a combat check. And while I'm sure the intention is that you *can't*, the word "change" is where the fundamental problem lies.

Looking at the rulebook under "Attempting Checks," it states:

"Cards that require a skill check specify the skills you can use to attempt the check. Monsters often call for a combat check."

"'Check to Defeat' and 'Check to Acquire' are followed by one more more skills; you may use any of the skills listed for your check."

So, let's look at a Goblin Pyro-

Check to Defeat: Combat (9)

With the above quoted rules in mind, the word "combat" must be considered a skill.

If we look at a Large Chest-

Check to Defeat: Dexterity / Disable (9) or Strength / Melee (10)

The Large chest may be defeated with either the Dexterity/Disable skills or the Strength/Melee skills.

Continuing on:

By default, "...if you don't play such a card, use your Strength or Melee skill." Combat may be achieved by simply rolling your strength die, which every character has.

"Some cards may allow you to replace the required skill for a check with a different one; you may play only 1 card or use only 1 power that changes the skill you are going to use."

Playing a quarterstaff uses the same Strength or Melee die, thus for the combat check, the skill being used hasn't changed from the default Strength die.

Then, adding in a force missile, now changes the die to an arcane die. This is the first, formal change to the skill being used.

So, what I was getting hung up on is the word "change" and how the first card you're playing doesn't seem to change anything, but simply set what your first check was going to be. So by using a quarterstaff you're using your strength die, then by using a force missile you are now changing the strength die to an arcane check (die).

Essentially, it seems to me, that the first combat check card being played, whether it's a weapon or spell, isn't changing anything so much as it's initiating it. For something to be changed, there has to be something in place prior to it.

I do agree that one loot item does lead to some odd "fighting over" by other party members.

You could take a "wow-ish" approach and just have everyone do a roll-off and see who wins that way.

I'd also like to chime in for a moment and add my vote to correctly printed cards being included in future expansions. Certain companies (like FFG for Elder Sign and Wiz Kids for Mage Knight) have included corrected cards in their expansions, which is a gesture of excellent customer service.

Here's hoping!