Greg K.'s page

Admittedly the title made me think the increase would be much worse than it is. All in all this is unfortunate but also completely understandable.

Glad to see progress has been made! Thank you for the update!

Thanks for the reminder of the various pratfalls bugleyman. It’s why I keep mentioning that this is not the first time management at Paizo have acted out of step with community expectations.

I must say it really is odd that “vitriol and pitchforks” keeps getting rolled out. I haven’t seen *any* vitriol. Plenty of indignation. No pitchforks. Just requests for Paizo to do better and/or reverse the deeply unpopular decision to end the partnership with AoN.

I do think Jim Butler has very little idea how to engage meaningfully with the community. It isn’t the first time his words have landed badly.

There were also people in the other forum thread insulting people earlier, including Paizo employees. Those comments were subsequently removed but they did exist.

It is also worth mentioning that no matter if we agree or disagree, conversations like these can be very important to make any possible limits known, while also providing possible solutions a community would be more agreeable towards.

As long as all we remain civil and we understand the weight of any possible choice.

Dr. Aspects wrote:

I would like to reiterate, Maya, that no matter my feelings at the moment on Paizo as a whole, I still appreciate the work you do and know you're an advocate for the entire community just doing your best for all parties. Thank you for the service you're doing.

Thank you, Dr. Aspects! I'm doing everything I can. And then I'm reading your concerns, learning, and doing even more!

Adding my voice to the choir, thank you for all you're doing Maya!

Greg K. wrote:

Paizo's point was terribly worded (and Jim should not make any posts for a while) but the core of it is true, no matter how we feel about it, AoN simply assumed (per their own video) that they were done with any possibility of a deal because there was no other email by Paizo and they did not send a second email themselves.

And again, a secondary email is basic stuff, volunteer work or not, if you get into this space to the extent AoN has, you should know the basic stuff.

This is just my impression based on what both sides have said, but it doesn't seem like there was ever a suggestion for a deal that would maintain AoN as it is. Just half-solutions and short-term options.

I'm expecting that there was already an inked deal for Demiplane to become the PRD (paizo.com/prd has to redirect somewhere). We'll find out soon, but without an alternative PRD already in place I don't see them ending the agreement.

No matter how it is maintained, I, and others (for example second top comment in their Patreon video response as of writing), feel like that any possibility should've been mentioned even in passing. It would have alleviated a lot of knee-jerk reactions, though not all.

As for the PRD part, I can only say that if Paizo gains money from such a possible move, which I'm assuming they will since its Demiplane, I understand, and this is me speaking for myself and only myself here, but I will support it.

Greg K. wrote:

Master Han Del of the Web wrote:

Greg K. wrote:

The more I have discussed this situation on multiple platforms, and read and viewed all responses by both parties, I will not lie, I've been increasingly disappointed with how AoN handled this.

Definitely not happy with that either but it is important to remember it is an entirely volunteer organization whose members have whole jobs outside of it. The impact could have been mitigated if Jim had just followed up or empowered someone to check and respond to his e-mails while out of the office and the two groups could have released statements that were better coordinated and collaborative as opposed to... this.

Hell, they should have done a freaking Zoom call or something and gotten down to it in an evening or two.

I am not pleased with how Jim handled it either, don't get me wrong.

However volunteer work should still receive some criticism, because it can still be mismanaged. Example: A reminder email is not so much of a courtesy as a basic thing to do in situations like these. I think what personally bothers me on AoN's front is how they have not disclosed some of the info that led to Paizo being viewed worse, even by myself at first.

I would have preferred to know that there was at least a possibility of a deal, even if they said that Paizo had not replied to them, in the initial statement.

I would have also preferred if they had specified that they're getting a six month period to remove the art and that it is their own choice to remove said art on day 1 to get done with the matter quick.

Right there with you, I'm just always more inclined to lay the lion's share of the blame at the feet of the part with the most power in the situation. In this case Paizo or, more specifically, Jim Butler.

I really feel like this is getting out of hand with the potential to do real damage and it's mostly because of a handful of boneheaded and irresponsible decisions.

Fully agree on this, the community at this point is not helping much either with how much misinformation is still being spread.

Greg K. wrote:

However volunteer work should still receive some criticism, because it can still be mismanaged. Example: A reminder email is not so much of a courtesy as a basic thing to do in situations like these. I think what personally bothers me on AoN's front is how they have not disclosed some of the info that led to Paizo being viewed worse, even by myself at first.

I would have preferred to know that there was at least a possibility of a deal, even if they said that Paizo had not replied to them, in the initial statement.

I would have also preferred if they had specified that they're getting a six month period to remove the art and that it is their own choice to remove said art on day 1 to get done with the matter quick.

Even if I do take it as being AoN's fault for not prodding for an answer back, it was Paizo's decision in the first place to end the partnership. Neither side has presented Paizo as offering something that would actually mitigate the issue in a meaningful way. They only seem to have been ways to make transition slower, when that hasn't been the issue.

Even after being thrown under the bus in the Paizo blog post, AoN has encouraged people to support Paizo and keep their subscriptions.

Paizo's point was terribly worded (and Jim should not make any posts for a while) but the core of it is true, no matter how we feel about it, AoN simply assumed (per their own video) that they were done with any possibility of a deal because there was no other email by Paizo and they did not send a second email themselves.

And again, a secondary email is basic stuff, volunteer work or not, if you get into this space to the extent AoN has, you should know the basic stuff.

Greg K. wrote:

The more I have discussed this situation on multiple platforms, and read and viewed all responses by both parties, I will not lie, I've been increasingly disappointed with how AoN handled this.

Definitely not happy with that either but it is important to remember it is an entirely volunteer organization whose members have whole jobs outside of it. The impact could have been mitigated if Jim had just followed up or empowered someone to check and respond to his e-mails while out of the office and the two groups could have released statements that were better coordinated and collaborative as opposed to... this.

Hell, they should have done a freaking Zoom call or something and gotten down to it in an evening or two.

I am not pleased with how Jim handled it either, don't get me wrong.

However volunteer work should still receive some criticism, because it can still be mismanaged. Example: A reminder email is not so much of a courtesy as a basic thing to do in situations like these. I think what personally bothers me on AoN's front is how they have not disclosed some of the info that led to Paizo being viewed worse, even by myself at first.

I would have preferred to know that there was at least a possibility of a deal, even if they said that Paizo had not replied to them, in the initial statement.

I would have also preferred if they had specified that they're getting a six month period to remove the art and that it is their own choice to remove said art on day 1 to get done with the matter quick.

The more I have discussed this situation on multiple platforms, and read and viewed all responses by both parties, I will not lie, I've been increasingly disappointed with how AoN handled this.

Thank you for everything you're doing Maya! Wishing you the best!

Reovyn wrote:

Just because you CAN give something value does not mean you automatically SHOULD, especially in financial situations.

And that kinda short sighted thinking is exactly why Paizo is making this unforced series of errors. It's literally why it has a fallacy named after it.

A fallacy in it of itself does not directly affect a conclusion. In this particular case, the Doorman's Fallacy fails to consider the need for short-term cost cutting, which is what Paizo apparently needs more than some obscurred number of possible future sales.

Sidenote: Since there is a tiny bit of escalating aggression in this forum,I wish to make myself clear. I am not arguing against the value of AoN nor that others are 1000% wrong in how they're reacting. A person should "vote" with their wallet and voice no matter if I agree with them or not.

I want to ask the following.

There was an offer, or at least: hints at an offer, a possible path forward or however you wish to refer to it as (This is not me being passive aggressive, I legit defer to you for how you would put it.)

Why was this not brought up in the initial AoN announcement?

Greyson wrote:

Thebigham wrote:

The amount of money generated by AoN can't be quantified truly by a spreadsheet. You have to witness it first hand from the community. Be in touch with the community, in the trenches with the players and GMs to truly understand. If so you will quickly see that AoN is one of the MAJOR selling points for the system and in return you bring in new players and GMs, new tables, new groups, who will in return buy MORE of your product who might now have in the past if the cost to play was a burden to even try to see if they like it.

Must be nice to criticize and argue both sides of the issue in one paragraph. Which is it? Can we not quantify AoN's financial contributions to the endeavor? Or are we certain AoN users buy MORE of the product in a measurable way? Love to know.

.... Again, I recommend you look into "The doorman's Fallacy." Simply because something cannot be easily quantified on a spreadsheet, does not mean it is without value. I cannot quantify exactly how much more money i have made paizo using AoN, but I can tell you it is 50+ players of whom dozens went on to buy additional products that they would not have. You can't exactly track that in a spreedsheet though.

Just because you CAN give something value does not mean you automatically SHOULD, especially in financial situations.

Reovyn wrote:

Dr. Aspects wrote:

VerBeeker wrote:

Not sure exactly how to feel, but at the end of the day I’m keeping the subs. I don’t want to see these games die, though some people seem markedly keen for it for some reason out there.

I don't want these games to die, but frankly I have enough content to keep games going ad infinitum.

Paizo are the ones who chose this course of action, and they are being openly hostile to members of their own community working on a passion project that only benefits Paizo.

I have other companies I can support. I have other games I can play. I gave paizo my limited time and cash and if this is the game they're playing, instead of the one I signed up for? Then they'll either do fine without me, or they'll apologize and back off.

And what if the point about AoN is true? Obviously I do not see AoN being malicious about this, but is the idea of a volunteer team jumping the gun to make an announcement out of anxiety towards their community. without mentioning possible ways of this being worked on towards a solution BTS, THAT impossible?

A solely volunteer team working at a loss is in no way shape or form obligated to keep quiet when they see no path forward in the allotted time. They get more grace because they have no motive but fear.

Depending on the fear, if I end up being wrong and this isnt about keeping the community access and it is as some people are theorizing, a way for AoN to "push community sentiment to get better deals" then no.

If I end up being wrong and things are much worse for AoN than we're being led to believe, I will support them to the full extent of my capability.

VerBeeker wrote:

Not sure exactly how to feel, but at the end of the day I’m keeping the subs. I don’t want to see these games die, though some people seem markedly keen for it for some reason out there.

I don't want these games to die, but frankly I have enough content to keep games going ad infinitum.

Paizo are the ones who chose this course of action, and they are being openly hostile to members of their own community working on a passion project that only benefits Paizo.

I have other companies I can support. I have other games I can play. I gave paizo my limited time and cash and if this is the game they're playing, instead of the one I signed up for? Then they'll either do fine without me, or they'll apologize and back off.

And what if the point about AoN is true? Obviously I do not see AoN being malicious about this, but is the idea of a volunteer team jumping the gun to make an announcement out of anxiety towards their community. without mentioning possible ways of this being worked on towards a solution BTS, THAT impossible?

What are the direct ways we can support Paizo besides books and minis? I'm thinking of a subscription already but I wanted to ask if there are even more way of doing so.

People are not understanding (or willfully ignoring) that Demiplane is paying Paizo money, thus offsetting, at the very least some if not all, of the cost + the possibility of profit. I'm more interested in seeing the truth about if AoN rushed to make a statement or not, bc if they did and they admit to it, then ye I have no reason to mistrust Paizo. On the other hand if this is false, then I don't know how I'm gonna take it.